Gordon vs. Hanson Case Study
Gordonand Hanson entered into a purchase option contract agreed between thebuyer and the seller. By agreeing to take the $ 1000 from Hanson,Gordon confirmed the agreement, which remains open for a reasonabletime before it becomes invalid. In this case, Gordon breached thecontract only two weeks after the deal, which makes him liable tolegal prosecution. The law dictates on Mr. Gordon’s acceptance ofHanson’s offer of $150,000.
Inthis case, the two parties entered into the first-refusal agreement,which is liable for prosecution if the owner of the property decidesto revoke the agreement without prior communication. The firstrefusal agreement dictates that holder of the agreement has the rightand privileges to be the primary consideration if the owner of thehouse decides to sell the property. Following the nature of therefusal agreement, Gordon is liable to pay Hanson the damages causeddue to his failure to honor the agreement without priorcommunication. In the proceedings, the court will rule for Hanson andorder Gordon to compensate him. The terms of compensation will relyon the value of the property, the monetary sacrifice made by Hansonto book the property, and the period between the agreement and thebreach by Gordon. As outlined by Brisset, Cochard, and Maréchal(2015) the refusal contract is viable for a reasonable amount oftime. In this case, Gordon sold the house only two weeks after theagreement, which indicates that there were no major changes in thereal estate market to lead to the breach. It is also impartial toargue that the value for money used to book the house had notappreciated. Hansom should demand a refund with additionalproceedings.
Clark vs. Morgan Case Study
TheUSA laws have a keen interest in the agreements date a proceedingthat could lead to legal trials. Under different circumstances, thelaws dictate the formation, nullification, and breach of thecontractual agreements. In this case, the two parties acted forindividual benefits that canceling any motive from Clark or Morgan.However, the law dictates that Clark has the right to the agreementvia the mailbox rule of contract agreements.
Themailbox rule favors Clark who accepted the deal on 30 April. Theoffer presented by Morgan remained open for Clark to seal byaccepting through a logical channel of communication (Stanton, 2015).The mailbox rule also dictates that the receiver of an open deal hasthe right to single-handedly make and close an agreement provided hemeets the demand of the original offer. Therefore, on 30 April, Clarksealed the offer given by Morgan when she mailed the agreementletter. Although Morgan tried to cancel the offer, her revocation wasunsuccessful as she communicated with Clark a day after she sealedthe contract. The mailbox rule helps identify the precise time signedthe contract.
Dueto the confounding variables that might determine the delivery of theacceptance letter, the mailbox rule focuses on the time where anindividual sent the letter explaining the motive. However, thesimilar rule is not applicable to Morgan who was trying to revoke thedeal. Although she tried to communicate, she did not have an opendeal with Clark and only mutual and two-way communication could havechanged the standing deal between the two. On the contrary, bysending her acceptance, Clark automatically sealed the open agreementpresented by Morgan thus becoming the priority in the caseproceedings.
John vs. Retailer Case Study
Johnwould probably lose the case. While the business law seeks to ensurefree and fair transfer of power and resources, it also allows thefree-will and the power of the market. The free-will and the marketmovement allows free and fair competition depending on the resourcesinput and the anticipated returns. In this case, John had ample timeto undertake the market research and analyze the possible benefitsenjoyed through the purchase. Similarly, before the purchase, Johntook his consideration on the quality of the goods and the costforegone and made an independent decision to purchase the ties at $60. The court should not investigate whether John had sufficientinformation.
Additionally,there is no legal evidence to identify the value of John’s ties andthose purchased by his friend. In the event the court identifies sucha relationship, it would remain insufficient to compensate John dueto lack of standard acquisition procedures. While the vendor mighthave acquired the ties at a relatively lower price, John’s sellermight have acquired them at a relatively high price. During thepurchase, John considered the enrichment gained and the cost ofacquiring the ties. The seller, who is the legal owner of the ties,had the right of pricing and John made a decision afterconsiderations.
Honesty John vs. Roberts Case Study
Punitivedamages are the compensation to the victim of the actions thatinitially started the lawsuit. From a higher perspective, thepunitive damages seek to keep social and political balances inbusiness law. Due to the confounding factors that affect the motiveand the consequences ensured after the breach of a contract, itbecomes increasingly difficult to determine the specific course ofaction in every situation. Therefore, the courts award the plaintiffwith the punitive damages to ensure the balance of judgment in everysituation.
Consideringthe facts of this case Honesty John would probably lose the case andcompensate Roberts in one of the following grounds. Firstly, HonestJohn used false information to lure Robert into the deal without ananalysis of the legal consequences if Roberts found out. Although itis not common to have such damages in breach of contract cases,Roberts suffered the consequences of inferior product and risked anyunforeseen events between purchase and the time she realized theactual value of the car.
Secondly,Honesty John would pay the punitive damages due to his attempts toinfluences Robert’s decision to go to the court. The case studyidentifies that John’s attorney tried to convince Robert that thejudge would never authorize the payment of $5,000 punitive damages.While the decision might be true, it is a possible approach byHonesty John to intimidate the plaintiff forcing him to settle thecase instead of going to the case. Such proceedings in the USA lawcalls for punitive damages to the plaintiff
Moreover,the court night offers the punitive damages on the grounds ofavailability. As the punitive damages seek to caution the wrongdoings that are not into explicit laws, the social, economic factorsplay a major role in determining the decisions of a court. In thiscase, John can afford the $ 5000, which increases the possibility ofthe court favoring Roberts.
Gordon vs. Franklin Case Study
Thereis no explicit contract between Franklin and Gordon. The indefiniteposits that an enforceable contract must be clear and precise (Bott,2014). It is impracticable to ascertain the reasonable profits due tothe market factors that identify the prices. The court will assumethere was no contract between Franklin and Gordon.
Accordingto Cappelen, Hagen, Sørensen and Tungodden (2014), a clear andprecise contract includes figures and easily translated phrases thathave a standard meaning to the parties in the agreement. As such,during the contractual agreement, the parties engaging in theagreement should come up with a clear definition of terms asjustified by the law in the presence of an attorney. In most cases,and especially in international business, the parties develop theprecise definition to avoid confusion in the future. Other specificdetails include the values, relationship of the terms, and thetimeframe within which the contract is valid.
Inthe Franklin and Gordon case study, the court would not implement theagreement due to lack of specific aspects. Firstly, when the twoagreed to have an agreement at a reasonable price, they did not comeup with a lucid description of the ‘reasonable’ profits. In otherwords, Franklin and Gordon might have different ideologies of thereasonable profits making the contract null and void. Secondly, noneof the parties explained the relationship of terms, which mightchange between the agreement date and the date of implementation.
Bott,S. H. (2014). PanelMembers of the Review Board for the Award of Indefinite
Brisset,K., Cochard, F., & Maréchal, F. (2015). Is the newcomer moreaggressive when the
incumbentis granted a Right-of-First-Refusal in a procurement auction?Experimental Evidence. Theoryand Decision, 78(4),639-665.
Cappelen,A. W., Hagen, R. J., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2014).Do
Non‐EnforceableContracts Matter? Evidence from an International LabExperiment. Reviewof Income and Wealth, 60(1),100-113.
Stanton,T. (2015). LEG 183T. 01: Contracts.