Issue Overview In order for a contract to be enforceable, there are seven key characteristics that must be present: offer, acceptance, consideration, legality, capacity, consent and writing (depending on the situation). The Eric Seidner and Steve Whitcomb case describes an example of what is believed to be a bilateral contract in which both parties agree to form a partnership. The problem with an oral agreement as compared to a written agreement is that there is no formal document between the parties. A major issue that comes up when dealing with oral contracts is, what is true and what is false. You have one party stating one thing and the other party telling a different story. The examination of if this oral agreement will be enforceable …show more content…
The case states that Seidner agreed to help finance the properties, so presumably there is some sort of paper trail that will lead the court to believe that Seidner played an active role in the development of these properties. Examining consideration - why would Seidner agree to finance these buildings if he did not expect anything in return? Though there was no written contract outlining what was owed, the court would find it suspicious if Seidner was financing developments for Whitcomb with no expected …show more content…
A reason for this would be that he potentially could be hiding this project from those other legal proceedings to protect his self interests and not being fully honest with the court of his assets that would be divided up in a divorce or that he was receiving income from a development that could be used to settle his tax problems. Additionally, the court would identify this as a Statute of Fraud case due to the transfer of land as suggested in the partnership agreement. In a transaction that requires land to be transferred, it is required by the law for there to be a written agreement. Lastly, The court may also suggest that the relationship in question might take more than a year to complete and therefore require a written contract. That reasoning is a bit loose, as the divorce along with the tax problems could be cleaned up within a year, but probably not. Thus, the court would most likely not use this as part of their rationale for the
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
Consider your and the court’s response to the above question. Would your decision be different if it could be shown that, in a certain small,
...rts. The Supreme court often get requests to revisit the case, however the supreme regularly declines the offer.
Two of the most significant inmates rights cases in the past century are Sandin v. Conner and Whitley v. Albers.
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
In the general, judges are unwilling in most states to even inform juries of the option of nullification.
This case concerns Mr Homer, a 51-year-old who retired from the police force in October 1995, and his numerous appeals against the holding of the Court of Appeal that there was no indirect discrimination with regard to his age. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police appeals against the decision made that if there had been indirect discrimination, it could not be justified in this case. The case of Seldon V Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16 ran alongside however it was concerned with direct discrimination of age. The case of Mr Homer reached the Supreme Court before justices: Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr on appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 419.
...termining who was right and who was wrong would create the problem because they would have to justify the reason they ruled that way. Justifying the reason the court ruled that way, could cross the line onto the freedoms given to the citizens of the United States.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
There are three basic essentials to the creation of contract which will be recognised and enforced by the courts. These are: contractual intention, agreement and consideration.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,