Week 3 Discussion Board Peer Responses

.docx

School

Seton Hall University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

7400

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by jadamarie123

Week 3 Discussion Board Peer Responses (150 words minimum) Question 1 Desiree, I agree with your perspective on the court’s decision to overturn the Sullivan v. Flynn (1892) case, as the original rule in contract law regarding mentally incapacitated people is outdated in today’s context. I think it is crucial that our laws adapt to the current times. Treating every mentally incapacitated person as incapable of entering into a contract is both unfair and potentially discriminatory. Although the initial rule aimed to protect the mentally impaired community, it overly restricts their legal rights. The revised rule allows this group to exercise their contractual rights unless they actively rescind the agreement. This new approach Is an improvement but, it may not be flawless. I believe it’s important to incorporate additional measures to prevent mentally incapacitated people from being exploited. Establishing a good balance between protection and freedom to exercise rights can be difficult because contract law is complex and varies with the circumstances of each case. Citation: Dexter v. Hall, 82. U.S. 9 (1872) Hernandez v. Banks, 65 A.3d 59 (D.C. 2013) Sullivan v. Flynn, 20 D.C. (9 Mackey) 396 (1892 ) Sara, Great discussion post this week. Your stance in support of the court’s decision overturning th Sullivan v. Flynn (1892) decision was well explained. I completely agree that labeling contracts of mentally incapacitated individuals as inherently void is significantly outdated. In 2024, advancements such as modern medicine and court appointed guardianship for example can enable a mentally incapacitated person to engage in contracts. The court was justified in revising this contract law precedent as it was no longer applicable to our present day. Despite this new contract rule, we both seem to recognize that there still is a potential for abuse. As you mentioned, it is a grey area. Your suggestion of a fair assessment for every mentally incapacitated person before they enter into a contract seems pretty reasonable. This would provide a more detailed approach to mental capacity and contracts, recognizing that mental impairments are diverse and can impact people differently. Citation: Dexter v. Hall, 82. U.S. 9 (1872) Hernandez v. Banks, 65 A.3d 59 (D.C. 2013) Sullivan v. Flynn, 20 D.C. (9 Mackey) 396 (1892 )

Question 2 Ciera, Nice discussion post. After considering this scenario, I have to disagree that it would be ethical to buy an item at the seller’s reduced price from a yard sale or market with the full knowledge of its actual value. It may be true that buyers are not legally bound to disclose information about an item’s true worth. However, I find this unethical because the buyer would have more bargaining power in their favor. I can agree with the argument that it is the seller’s responsibility to make themselves aware of the true value of their items for sale. It’s very likely that a buyer would withhold the information they have from an uninformed seller in order to save money on their purchase. However, the seller may not be able to rescind their contract so easily. Even if the contract was not written, verbal agreements can still be binding. Also, the buyer’s sale receipt could also be considered a written agreement in court. Citation: Klosterman, C. (2013, September 20). Garage-Sale Arbitrage . The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/magazine/garage-sale-arbitrage.html Ellie, I completely agree with your opinion on the provided scenario. If the seller is unaware that they have priced their item lower than what it is truly worth, the buyer would be unethical in purchasing the item for the lower price. Although the buyer does not have to inform or advise the seller to raise their price to match the true value of the item, they have more bargaining power by withholding that information. Without this knowledge, the seller gets a missed opportunity to make any profit in the sale which does not seem like a fair deal to me. Your point about the seller being exploited by their lack of knowledge was interesting. Under this circumstance, a seller may be able to argue that the buyer fraudulently purchased their item at a low price with prior knowledge that they actually should have paid more. However, as contract law is very subjective this could go either way in court. Citation: Klosterman, C. (2013, September 20). Garage-Sale Arbitrage . The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/magazine/garage-sale-arbitrage.html

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