Discussion 1: Mutual Agreement a. Can the contract for sale be canceled because of fraud? Yes, Gortino had reckless disregard for the truth and knew his statement about the termites was false. Technically, Stein didn't even have to ask; what Gortino did was intentional concealment. b.
rejection by entering into a substitute transaction, he is excused from performance obligations B. Determined by Little condition is not completely within the promisor's control C. Sufficient cause An agreement that gives one party an unfettered right to terminate at any time will be interpreted to require “reasonable notice,” thus placing a limitation on that party's freedom sufficient to satisfy the consideration requirement 1. Certain terms (open) buyer is constrained to request amounts that are not unreasonably disproportional there is clearly consideration for the modification and it is enforceable the modern rule, an offer for a unilateral contract becomes an option for the offeree 2.
1. Ronderos should win the lawsuit because the property was rightfully Schock’s already and Ronderos is not a merchant therefore the risk of loss is Schock’s. 6. The dealer
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
Q: What are the risks associated with arbitration? A: The risk of arbitration exists objectively, because it is irregular behavior of arbitration, so the risks of arbitration lead to the arbitration process and eventually leads to the unfair business and interests. Also if parties do not offer evidence, they may have an unfair result. Q: Why might a company prefer to settle disputes by litigation? A: Litigation is the final step to resolve a dispute.
Plaintiffs' attempt to show such direction by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence fell short. (2) Under Rule 23(b) (2), the back pay claims were improperly certified. Rule 23(b) (2) applies only when a single, indivisible remedy would provide relief to each class member. Individualized monetary claims belong instead in Rule 23(b) (3), with its procedural protections of predominance, superiority, mandatory notice, and the right to opt out. Plaintiffs' argument that back pay claims do not "predominate" over their claims for injunctive and declaratory
TORTS A. Intent, p. 9 * No contact is intentional if it is not the result of a voluntary act. * The word “intent” is used to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. * The intent requirement is met either by a purpose to cause the tortious contact or substantial certainty that such a contact will result * Sometimes courts will say that you need dual intent of purpose and knowledge. The court sometimes requires this and one or the other is not sufficient.
Party1 then sued Party2 refusing to sell the farm for $50,000. Law: Laws the court used are: “The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party.” Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, 71, p. 74. and “Specific performance, it is true, is not a matter of absolute or arbitrary right, but is addressed to the reasonable and sound discretion of the court.” First Nat. Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co., supra, 169, VA. At p. 116, 192 S.E.
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.
The parties agree that partial performance will be good enough and the person who carries out some of the work is entitled to as much as he has earned. ← Unjust enrichment and Quasi-contract – Where there is no valid contract because the contract has been breached, or is void, or was never binding. ← The Court ordered payment on the basis of QM or QC, as indeed, at common law, there was no contract that he had performed services (See Carven-Ellis v Canons Limited (Carver 355)) ← Substantial performance ← A party who has performed his obligation except for matters of a minor character will be allowed to enforce the obligation of the other party subject to a counterclaim for damages in respect of the defects. (Hoenig v Issacs case P. 32 Unit 3) ← Discharge by breach of contract - a party may repudiate( or refuse to be bound) by his contractual obligations, either before or at the time performance is