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.
Emails are not a signed agreement. Even though both parties had all intent of an agreement, nothing was ever inked in to make the deal official. The agreement was not legally binding in any way. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract?
The US and Iraq should not go to war because there’s no real justification, Iraq does not pose a clear or present threat, and the US is less safe as a result. As stated, there’s no real vindication for going to war with Iraq. There was no Iraqi connection to September 11th and Iraq has not threatened war on the US. 9/11 was connected to a private group of sick and dismal people, not Iraq. other then September 11th, there is nothing even moderately close to a considerable “attack on the US”.
The husband said it was too late. The appellate court held that although an oral contract was enforceable under N.J. Stat. Ann. &25:1-13, the neighbor did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the wife’s actions have the husband authority to act on her behalf. Therefor the wife did not ratify the husband’s actions.
The issues here are very similar to those in MacFarlane v. Bloch, in which M.M. Bloch refused to pay the reward offered, and Katherine MacFarlane refused to Bloch’s pocketbook until the reward was received. One of the issues addressed in that case was the relevance of the presence of knowledge at the time of the performance. The court found that this was not relevant, as the reward was not offered for the finding, but for the return of the pocketbook. See MacFarlane v. Bloch, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 98.
The trial court dismissed Dementas suit, saying that the contract was not enforceable, because it lacked valid consideration. Dementas then appealed the decision. Issue Was the contract between Dementas and Tallas enforceable, based on whether or not the consideration in the contract was valid? Holding/Decision No, the consideration was not valid, making the
An island is a contingent being and cannot be compared with the necessary being that is God as it isn’t a reasonable comparison. Anselm didn’t intend for a whole new argument to be formed out of this amendment, it was planned to just strengthen it, but it did stop Gaunilo in his tracks as no counter argument was provided for this. Why this occurred is unknown, maybe Gaunilo agreed with Anselm or maybe he just had no way to criticise it at the
Broom and Miller’s appeal was not able establish how these laws obligates to their discharge case. Broom and Miller’s intention was right but they failed to use “the proper chain of command in raising an issue about another employee”. They are nonunion employees, which means they have no support from any union. Answer 2: If Broom and Miller had been members of the a bargaining unit represented by union for the purpose of collective bargaining, this case would have been handled differently. Broom and Miller lacked the evidence in the three salutary laws, which they presented.
Another weakness of the Articles of Confederation was its inability to levy taxes. Congress was unable to tax the states and, as a result, was unable to reduce the growing debt or provide a national military. In a letter to Congress, in 1782, Rhode Island rejected a federal taxation proposal from Congress saying the amount requested was “unequal in its operation, bearing hardest on the most commercial states.” Rhode Island thought such amount would negatively affect the economy of their state (Doc A). Since the power to tax was given to the individual states and not the federal government, the articles had no way of enforcing such a proposed tax.
Therefore even if a fiduciary relationship would be proven the plaintiffs would have not right to ask the NSW Government to let them live on the land for an indefinite period of time. In Breen it was observed that the law has not formulated ‘any precise or comprehensive definition of the circumstances in which a person is constituted a fiduciary in his or her relations with another’[13], but this is a matter which is established on factual circumstances of each case. All the reasons displayed so far sustain that the factual circumstances do not prove such a