The facts of this case are presented very clearly. Ashton Kutcher, owner of Ashton Acres, and Byrd Busch, owner of Bud Liteacres, have adjoining 100 acre farms. Separating the two was a barbwire fence. In addition, a large swamp encompassed part of both acreages (10 acres of Ashton Acres and 50 acres of Bud Liteacres). The two owners met over coffee where Busch orally proposed a trade of 25 acres for the draining of the swamp and a payment of $50,000 ($5,000 up front and $45,000 upon completion). The two owners shook hands on the deal and proceed to mark the 25 acres Ashton would receive upon completion. Ashton then paid Busch $5,000 as a down payment and began working on the swamp. Over a 30 day period, Ashton successfully completes the work using his own materials and labor and prepares a $45,000 payment for Busch. However, when Ashton arrives to present the check to Busch, Busch is not home. Instead he left a note saying the deal was off, as there was no contract between the two, and the barbwire fence needed to be returned to its original position between the farms. Unfortunately for Ashton, Busch is correct. There is no enforceable contract between the two landowners. The oral agreement is not enforceable because it involves the transfer of land and the sale of goods between the two is greater …show more content…
than $500. The Statute of Frauds requires that a written contract be signed in instances such as this. Fortunately, Ashton should be able to receive some compensation for the work he completed on Bud Liteacres (he will not receive any compensation for the work to his own property).
Because the work Ashton completed, benefitted 50 acres of Bud Liteacres and only 10 of Ashton Acres, the costs divided by the two should reflect that split. A total of 60 acres were benefitted and Busch owned 50 of those 60 acres. This means about 80% of the work done was advantageous for Busch’s property. Only about 20% benefitted Ashton Acres. Thus, the costs should be split in a similar manner with Busch paying 80% and Ashton absorbing 20% (it doesn’t make sense for Ashton to pay
himself). As a result of his manual labor, Ashton should receive appropriate compensation for the hours worked, in addition to fees associated with the depreciation of his equipment usage, maintenance, and gasoline. Furthermore, he should be refunded the initial deposit of $5,000, as that was going toward the purchase of land from Busch. Finally, Busch must pay half of the costs to replace the fence that was removed during this construction. Because the fence will divide the acreages and is equally necessary for each party, that is the only fee that will be split 50/50.
The real dispute about the plaintiffs’ rights was focused on whether the fraud exception to the protection afforded to the registered proprietor by s. 184(3)(b) of the Land Title Act had been enlivened by the conduct of Mr Lacy and Mrs Capper as the plaintiffs’ admitted agents or by that of Mr Sultan. On the factual findings I have made, Mr Sultan has not been shown to have acted fraudulently nor to have been the plaintiffs’ agent.
Answer: No, it is not enforceable because there was no bargained-for exchange. Pablo did not give Xerxes Corp. something of legal value in return for this promise. Therefore, if Pablo
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
Apparently McLaughlin did not think so and felt that by the action of Mr. Heikklia by changing the cost of parcels mean that they were without a “meeting of the minds.” There was no deal since the land transaction was not in writing. Then Mr. McLaughlin sued Mr. Heikklia on the grounds “to compel specific performance of the purchase agreements under the terms of the agreements before Heikkila withdrew his offer” (Cheeseman, 2013).
Must be remembered, the Chantenay red cored carrots are considered as unique goods. In effect, this would give Campbell right to have first dibs on the yield. Specifically, Campbell will be able to set more equitable terms around the per ton of price of the red cored carrots they paid for from the farmers. On the positive side, both the farmers and Campbell will have the fair percentage of the Chantenay red cored carrots harvested at the end of the year. In detail, the contract states if Campbell does not purchase the crop within a set number of days from harvest or not purchase the rejected crops then the farmers have the rights to sell the Chantenay red cored carrots to whomever they choose. Overall, the contract is unconscionable for Campbell to occupy a large percentage of the farmland and not fairly compensate the farmers of those
Two years passed and they returned with the document in hand, claiming the land was no longer theirs to live off of. The signed document was in truth an agreement to live on the land for a mere two years and a promise to uproot once the two years expired.
It all started back in 1989 when Home Savings of America announced to build a giant new community consisting of 3,050 homes, two schools, two hotels, two golf courses and 400,000 square feet of commercial and industrial areas on the 5,400-acre Ahmanson Ranch located at the eastern end of Ventura county, adjacent to Los Angeles County. Even though the Ahmanson Ranch has been owned by Home Savings of America since 1963, the nature remained undisturbed all these past years. The ranch has become one of the important habitats for barely surviving native organisms including threatened or endangered species. For this and other important reasons, an organization, Friends of Ahmanson Ranch, was formed to stop the development with the support from other environmental organizations, local legislatures, politicians and public. Almost seven years have passed since the beginning of this issue, but the conflict still remain unsolved. What is interesting about this issue is the diversity in the reason which the Friends of Ahmanson Ranch claims for protecting the Ahmanson Ranch from development. They point out a variety of reason, and they are not necessarily environmental opinion.
Instead of executing the release, Andrew Ross, a construction manager with Bent Tree, responded with a request for $124,191.29. In this request, Mr. Ross stated that their cost for the damages was greater than what was currently being offered. The claimant provided additional invoices that were later reviewed by the independent adjuster. Mr. Rushziky’s review of the estimates found that there is an $8,364.87 difference at Replacement Cost.
When Berry and I gave Billy Greene our note for the purchase of his store, he assigned it—without advising us—to Reuben Radford from whom he had previously bought the business. Radford then endorsed our note to Peter Van Bergen, a keen-eyed businessman, to satisfy a debt. When Radford failed to pay, Van Bergen brought suit against Berry and me.
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
When a group Olympic Valley, California residents decided to start a petition to incorporate the community, property owners and local businesspersons immediately began debating the issue. Those in favor of incorporation wanted to make Olympic Valley into a town, so the community could govern itself by electing a town council. Those against incorporation claimed that the town wouldn't be able to afford to maintain services, such as snow plowing, that were essential to the community.
This case involved 2 parties, Tom Gentry and John Marsh. These two where in a partnership with each other and they were involved in buying and selling horses. They would buy horses then sell the babies for profit and also just sell the horse as well at many types of auctions. In November 1976 Marsh and Gentry bought these two horses together called Champagne Woman and Excitable lady. In 1978 Marsh and Gentry auctioned off Champagne Lady and Gentry used an anonymous bidder so Marsh wouldn’t find out that he used one to acquire Champagne Lady without telling Marsh. There was a fiduciary relationship between them and he broke it by not telling him because it can alter their profits because of this. When Gentry was supposed to be selling Excitable Lady, he didn’t pay Marsh instead he just didn't tell him. So a couple years down the road, Marsh soon realizes that
My educational plans after highschool is to attend my future college is to go to Cosumnes River college, there I plan to take extra classes to help me to be at the education level I need to be. During this time I hope to get my Agriculture Associate degree and be under the transfer program. After I plan to transfer to UC Davis and pursue a international Agriculture Masters and bachelors degree. During my time in college I plan to be involved in internship to gain experience in possible career choices and the abroad program.
- main collateral for the deal (land) would only become gradually available as the government first
Hogsmeadow Garden Centre is a popular tourist area of the UK, which mainly sells garden-related products in shops and high-quality food in restaurants. In the past few years, Hogsmeadow Garden Centre was expanded and the number of customers sharply increased. However, the sales revenue and profitability hadn’t grown as fast. The aim of this essay is to discuss the main micro-operations at Hogsmeadow Garden Centre and its main input resources, transformation process and outputs, the problems faced by Don Dursley in managing and developing his centre and the solutions to improve the profitability of his business.