Stein should sue. Alternately, if Stein wants to sue Gortino for fraud to cancel the sale or come up with a different settlement, she can do that. Discussion 2: How does this doctrine act as an exception to the elements and requirements of a contract? This doctrine can act as an exception because, according to Reinstatement Section 90, the promise doesn't have to be "so comprehensive in scope as to meet the requirements of an offer that would create a binding contract if accepted by the promisee" ("Hoffman v. Red," 1967). Also, the promissor has to expect that, upon the promise, it will induce action by the promisee.
The party was not acting as a volunteer in providing this benefit. The party receiving the benefit would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the benefit without paying for it. All of these requirements must be met in order for a quasi-contract judgment to be awarded. In this case, I believe that the requirement most likely to be disputed is the question of whether or not Middleton benefitted. However, the requirement of enrichment could be argued as well if enrichment came from knowledge and not profit.
Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship. There appears to be no evidence of fraudulent intent. As a result, Davey Jones will have to plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. Since he appears to want to cancel the contract, he can plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. If he claims fraudulent misrepresentation and is unsuccessful, then Davey Jones will likely have to pay Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. its full legal costs.
Question #1 John v. Gilbert Gilbert’s argument was that lottery ticket was his and he did not mean to throw it away. While Johns argument is that when he found it that it was abandoned property which is property which the owner has voluntarily parted with and has no intention of recovering it. Once Gilbert threw the ticket out Gilbert forfeit his ownership of it. It also means that the finder i.e. John can claim title that is superior to that of any other person including the true owner i.e.
This type of negative activity can be classified as defamation due to the statements being false and defamatory. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain. In this circumstance, WIRETIME has committed a Tortious Interference with Existing Contractual Relationship Tort. WIRETIME had urged Janet to halt the current contract with BUGusa for their employment.
EXCEPTIONS: overcome rule by finding a REAL promise - frame illusory promise as unilateral contract => enforceable ex. Gurfein (99): had window to cancel, but didn’t => enforceable ➢ COULD HAVE bound other party if exercise option - Implied promises ➢ UCC §2-306 (2): a contract to engage in exclusive dealing gives rise to an implied promise to use best efforts Ex. Wood v. Lucy (104): mkt designs for profits ➢ ct implied promise: to make reasonable efforts b/c w/o implied promise, the contract would be meaningless b/c structural agreement = incentive to use best effort is built in Ex. Grouse (110): promised at-will job, not allowed to start work ➢ implied promise in at-will jobs = “good faith opportunity to perform satisfactorily’ - Structural agreements Ex. Lacledes(106): supply propane for long period ➢ although not bound to purchase, practical binding exists ➢ pipes connected to Amoco supply source ➢ hostage theory of contracts: voluntarily
In Ainsworth, the appellant alleged a breach of procedural fairness by the respondent and sought administrative law remedies. The court discharged the order nisi for writ of certiorari based on the fact that the report does not carry any legal effect; and discharge mandamus on the ground that granting such writ will not be beneficial to the appellant. Although certiorari and mandamus are inapplicable, the court exercised its inherent power to grant declaratory relief. The appellant was granted declaration relief due to its adverse practical effect on the reputation of the
According to S27(2) he must do so in good faith, without any notice of the hire purchase agreement. Although S27 has strengthened the commercial position of the private purchaser in order to limit the application of the
The general rule is that, if an attempted transfer of property to trustees is imperfect, the trust is not completely constituted. Where consideration has been provided, the transfer may be treated as perfect in the eyes of equity even though in law it is not. Where there has been no consideration, however, no effective trust is created, since equity will not assist a volunteer. A failed gift cannot then be saved by treating it instead as a self-declaration of trust: if a settlor intends to use one method to confer a benefit on a person but fails to do so effectually, equity will not save the gift Milroy v Lord. Over the years, the courts have found a number of ways to avoid the harshness of the rule that equity will not perfect an imperfect
The tort of negligence is a term that escapes complete definition. Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury. It includes carelessness and lack of foresight; however the significance of negligence in tort is much broader. In law, it is defined as the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” (Alderson, 1856) [Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.] [1856] in this essay I will discuss the essential ingredients that make up the tort of negligence.