1) Advice Jason Miao whether he can go back on his promise of paying the extra $5,000. Jason Miao and Damien has concluded a contract to construct a swimming pool at the cost of $30,000 payable on completion of the work, which was not in dispute by either parties. After the construction work has commenced, Damien has asked Jason Miao for an extra $5,000 to cover the cost of materials and additional effort. The legal issue is whether Jason Miao is bound by thehis promise to pay Damien the such extra $5,000 to Damien to cover the cost of the materials and the additional effort. The extra $5,000 constitutes a new of term in the original contract. According to Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd V Edward Leong & Ors (1982) 2 MLJ 22, Damien’s …show more content…
This case established that what is known as the equitable principle of promissory estoppel according to this principle when the promisor who, with the intention to be legally bound, makes a promise to the promisee to whom he knows will who relyies on it to his or her detriment, will be enforced provided the promisor has acted on it. This principle is intended to stop the promisor from denying that the statements, word or conduct did not happen. It is important to note that no consideration is necessary, but Ffor this principle to work there must already be a pre-existing contractual relationship and both parties must rely on the promise. With this principle and authority and applying it to In the current situation, Damien found that the work is more difficult than expected and the cost of materials for construction of the swimming pool have gone higher. Damien asked for an extra $5,000 which Jason Miao agreed to pay. Damien, relying on Jason Miao’s promise, has completed the work by September and as a result incurred extra cost and put in additional effort. Therefore Jason Miao is estopped from going back on his promise of paying the extra $5,000.Jason and Damien, it can be argued Damien needs that $5000 extra for the materials and the additional effort in order to complete the construction on time and because of this, Jason made the promise so that he will have the pool by then. However as a counter argument, in the case Stilk V Myrick (1809)
However, according to John’s request, Richard would mislead the bank to give extra money by concealing the side agreement which is dishonest. Besides, Richard would also disobey the Ethical Rule from AIC.
Portia owes Bon $500 on their roof repair contract, but refuses to pay. To collect, Bon files a mechanic’s lien. Under a mechanic’s lien, security for the debt is represented by
Billy is attempting to claim the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm, which he believes he is entitled to. Choy, however, has calculated that the cost of Billy’s school and university fees amount to greater than the promised $20,000 and that the co-owner of the farm would not allow the transfer of a share in the farm.
3.) . Should the February 1, 2012, agreement and the May 1, 2012, agreement be accounted for separately or as a single arrangement?
Bernie lives in Richmond, VA and he decides on February 1 to advertise the sale of his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,500 in the local newspaper. After several weeks and no offers he gets a call from Vivian on March 1st offering to purchase the car for $12,000. Bernie realizes he may not get any other offers and sets up to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the sale transaction.
Case 4: As of January 1, the Lohse Company owes the First Arbor Bank $350,000 which is due on December 31. Since Lohse seems unable to repay the note, the bank agreed that Lohse can “settle” this balance by agreeing to make four, annual installments on each of the next four years, provided that it adds a “due on
1. Assume that the state of Ohio passed a hazardous waste statute, seeking to protect the general public and workers. The state statute did not violate the Commerce Clause because it imposed no restriction on interstate commerce. Both the state statute and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) established job safety standards and specified worker training and employer licensing, but the requirements differed. Which statute(s) Ohio corporations had to obey? Pick the best ANALYSISwer.
1. Give an example of a case that would fall under diversity jurisdiction. Explain all of the key elements of such a case.
3. For a crime to be committed, the prosecutor must be able to prove a criminal intent and an overt act to carry out that intent. Jack and Mary agreed to rob a series of banks. Prior to beginning their bank robbery spree, they were arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. What act did Jack and Mary do that justifies a finding that they committed the crime? Explain.
The strategy provisos included premium add up to be paid was expanded on my achievement of dominant part in the event that I neglect to change the approach. As I neglected to pull out from the agreement on the fulfillment of larger part, I was committed to pay to the additional premium for not changing the arrangement.
Please answer the questions posed at the end of each case study in essay form. Each essay will be judged on your capacity to present strong, logical discussions that support your conclusions.
10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.
Keith is also refusing to pay the extra £2,000 promised to Tech Ltd and Simon is also seeking to recover the £50 promised by Keith.
In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.
In the Final Paper (Case Study) it speaks to the following case and circumstances. Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced.