In scenario 1, Tarrington’s property is unique and therefore the “legal remedy of monetary damages will not compensate the buyer adequately” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, Pg. 246). Rainer cannot get the same house and lot in a different location. There is also no evidence presented to believe that Rainer would not meet his end of the agreement. Even though Rainer has not “substantially performed his contract obligations,” I do believe that his commitment can be considered an offer “to do so” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, Pg.
Adequacy of Consideration Adequacy of consideration refers to the fairness of the bargain. Ordinarily, courts will not evaluate the adequacy of consideration, unless it is so grossly inadequate as to “shock the conscience” of the court—if, in terms of its amount or worth, it indicates fraud, duress, or undue influence. The con¬tract may be declared unconscionable. A BAD BARGAIN is not failure of consideration Court do not consider the adequacy of the consideration given for the promise – the fact that the consideration supplied by one party is slight when compared with the burden undertaken by the other is immaterial as long as 1. the parties freely agreed to the exchange III. Agreements That Lack Consideration A. PREEXISTING DUTY Under most circumstances, a promise to do what one already has a legal duty to do is not legally suffi¬cient consideration.
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? No, because, the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake' and the 'common mistake' where not represented.
The producer has the power because they’re presenting the terms and conditions to the receiver and if they don’t want to follow the producers rule then they will not be allowed to borrow the boat. The receiver however can retrieve the power back by not signing the form. This will change who has the power because they will not be doing what is asked of them and are fighting the power and as a result the power is therefore negotiable. The producer has exerted power through graphiological features of the text, they have changed some words of their choice into bold whilst the body of the text is left normal. This has been done to put some emphasis on certain parts in order for the reader to pay more attention to them.
The principle, Butler, is not liable for torts caused by the third party/independent contractor. The respondent superior does not apply to this case since Sandidge is an independent contractor. Because Butler did not have any control on how Sandidge performed their work, there is no ground for Pugh’s to sue for wrongful death. In fact, Sandidge should be held liable for not meeting safety standards since Mr. Pugh was technically employed by Sandige. “For a general contractor to be liable for its independent contractor's acts, it must have the right to control the means, methods, or details of the independent contractor's work.
4. To cancel a contract on the basis of a mistake, the mistake must be about a material fact. 5. If a price quotation contains a mistake in the adding of a number of figures, the contract may not be enforceable. 6.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
The appellate court reversed the trail court’s ruling that Winkle was entitled to the profit – sharing bonus. The court held the opinion that since Winkle has not been paid his salary and bonus, therefore the contract had not been executed. “Section 1698 of the Civil Code provides: A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’… “Section 1698 has a dual operation. On the one hand it invalidates oral contracts of modification that are unexecuted, and on the other hand it validates executed agreements that might otherwise fail for lack of consideration...”(668 P 2d
A particularly important issue that has been raised is whether a person who acquires property after the institution of the regulatory regime should have any claim whatsoever. Some argue that such a landowner should not, having acquired the property knowing the restrictions to which it was subject and presumably at a price that reflected those restrictions. Others argue that to eliminate any such claim would enable government effectively to extinguish substantial value of the property without any recourse for the owner. The Supreme Court has concluded that the timing of the acquisition
Interim earnings, including amounts the employee could have earned with reasonable diligence, must be deducted from the amount awarded for lost wages. (2) The employee may recover punitive damages otherwise allowed by law if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the employer engaged in actual fraud or actual malice in the discharge of the employee in violation of 39-2-904(1). (3) There is no right under any legal theory to damages for wrongful discharge under this part for pain and suffering, emotional distress, compensatory damages, punitive damages, or any other form of damages, except as provided for in subsections (1) and (2). Limitation of actions § 911. (1) An action under this part must be filed within 1 year after the date of discharge.