BLAW Chp 11 HW

docx

School

Fairleigh Dickinson University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

123

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MagistrateBook14174

Question 7 - Express Contract: Larson may argue that there was an express contract based on the discussions and agreements between him and Johnson. Express contracts can be oral, and Larson could contend that the verbal agreements, promises, and discussions constituted a binding contract. - Quantum Meruit: Larson could also assert a claim based on quantum Meruit, seeking compensation for the reasonable value of the services he provided. This would be grounded in the idea that he conferred a benefit on Johnson, and it would be unjust for Johnson not to compensate him. o If one believes Larson's version of the facts, it will likely support the existence of an express contract, promissory estoppel, or a quantum meruit claim. Johnson's promises, discussions, and the alleged agreement to work "pro bono" in exchange for rent-free use of Pray's Meadow could be considered binding. o If one believes Johnson's version of the facts, it might suggest that Larson agreed to work on the "shop project" as a favor in exchange for continued rent-free use of the property. However, the extent of the agreement and the nature of the compensation are less clear in Johnson's version.  The absence of a written contract complicates the assessment, and the court would need to rely on oral agreements and the conduct of the parties. Question 8 - Family Relationships: The general presumption is that services rendered between family members are gratuitous, based on the idea that family members often help each other out of love, duty, or affection without expecting payment. - Burden of Proof: In cases where a family member seeks compensation for services, they may face a burden of proof to overcome the presumption. They need to show evidence that the services were not intended to be gratuitous but were provided with an expectation of payment.  The services were more in line with typical family assistance and there is no clear evidence of an agreement for compensation Question 9 - Dozier's Awareness: The fact that Dozier was aware of the improvements being made and did not object to them could be viewed as an indication that he acquiesced or consented to the work being done. - Request by Daughter and Grandson: The request for improvements by Dozier's daughter and grandson may further complicate the matter. If Dozier knew about their request and allowed the work to proceed, it could be seen as an indication of acceptance.  Dozier did not authorize the arrangements, but he knew they were happening does not give him the right to have to pay in the end. It was not his idea, and he was not looking for changes.

Question 10 - No Express Contract: Since there was no express contract between Landry and Harriet for the painting work, Landry is relying on the quasi-contractual theory to establish his right to payment. - Fair Price for both: Landry's claim for $3,100, which is a fair price for him but not for Harriet is unfair. They need to come to an arrangement.  Harriet should not pay the entire amount but should give something in return even if it was a mistake. Question 11 - Express Agreement: Margrethe and Charles had an agreement where Margrethe worked to support Charles through law school, and there was an understanding that she would go back to school for her master’s degree afterward. However, they got divorced before she went back to school. - Quasi-Contractual Recovery: Margrethe is claiming quasi-contractual recovery, asserting that she should be compensated for the money she spent on Charles's support and law school tuition. - Unjust Enrichment: Margrethe would need to demonstrate that she conferred a benefit on Charles by supporting him through law school and that it would be unjust for him to retain the benefits without compensating her.  Margrethe deserves to be compensated for the money and time she spent supporting him since they agreed on something. Question 12 - Unjust Enrichment: The association would need to demonstrate that it conferred a benefit on the property owners by maintaining the common areas and that it would be unjust for the property owners to retain the benefits without compensating the association. - Association's Right to Seek Compensation: The association's right to seek compensation through quasi-contractual recovery would depend on the specific facts, the nature of the association's services, and the terms of any agreements or assessments in place. - Quasi-Contractual Claim (Quantum Meruit): The association is claiming that the property owners are liable for the benefit conferred on them through the maintenance of the common areas, even though the property owners refused to pay the assessments.  They need to pay the association they were liable. Question 13

- Unjust Enrichment: Unjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits at the expense of another without legal justification. In this case, Hallman's land received improvements, but Partipilo ended up paying the increased taxes due to the assessor's mistake. - Mistake by Tax Assessor: Hallman argues that he did not do anything wrong and that the mistake was solely the fault of the tax assessor. However, the question is whether Hallman was unjustly enriched by the improvements made to his land for which Partipilo ended up paying. - Recovery: Partipilo is seeking restitution for the amount of the increased taxes he paid. Restitution is a legal remedy aimed at restoring the aggrieved party to the position they were in before the unjust enrichment occurred. - Defense of Lack of Wrongdoing by Hallman: Hallman's defense is that he did not commit any wrongdoing and that the mistake was outside of his control. The court may consider whether Hallman should be held responsible for the consequences of the mistake. - Equitable Considerations: The court may weigh equitable considerations, taking into account the mistake made by the tax assessor, the improvements made to Hallman's land, and the financial burden placed on Partipilo.  It was the tax assessors fault Question 14 - implied Contract: An implied contract is one that is not explicitly stated in writing or orally but is inferred from the conduct of the parties. In this case, the teacher is claiming that there was an implied contract for additional compensation based on the preparation of the detailed report. - Request by Vice President: The fact that the vice president of the college asked the teacher to prepare a detailed report suggests a request for specific work. The nature of the request and any understanding between the parties may be crucial. - Compensation Expectation: The teacher's claim for additional compensation implies that he expected to be compensated for the time spent preparing the report. Whether this expectation was reasonable and whether there was an understanding of compensation are relevant factors.  Yes, the college was liable to pay for the time spent preparing report Question 15

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

- Void Contracts: Contracts that involve illegal activities or are against public policy are generally considered void. In this case, the sale of automatic rifles to a foreign country, which is illegal under an act of Congress, would likely render the contract void. - Legal Consequences: While the contract itself may be void, engaging in illegal activities can still lead to legal consequences. Violations of laws, such as those prohibiting the sale of certain weapons, can result in criminal prosecution. - Validity of the Defense: The argument that the contract is void is generally correct, and the government may not be able to enforce the terms of the illegal contract. However, the fact that the contract is void does not absolve Smith from potential criminal prosecution for engaging in illegal activities. - Prosecution for Illegal Acts: Smith's prosecution would likely be based on the alleged violation of laws prohibiting the sale of automatic rifles to the foreign country. Criminal charges could be brought against him for actions that go beyond the mere existence of the void contract.  The voidness of the contract does not shield him from criminal prosecution since he was still engaging in illegal activities.

BLAW Chp 11 HW

Related Documents