Contract Law: Case Summary

Mr. Potbelly and Mr. Slim Jim are two competent people who voluntarily entered into an agreement for the purchases of the pottery and the home. Mr. Potbelly presented Mr. Slim Jim with the original offers and Mr. Slim Jim counter counter-offered within reason of the asking price. The conversation had between Mr. Potbelly and the other individual should not be grounds for him

Most time, acceptance would be made in clear and loud matters, such as saying “Yes, I accept.” But silence would constitute acceptance of an offer where the common-law and statutory law allows. Supreme Court of Nebraska has confirmed in Joseph Heiting and Sons v. Jacks Bean Co that acceptance may be established by silence or inaction of an offeree and acceptance occurs when the buyer/offeree “does any act inconsistent with the seller/offeror’s ownership...” Neb. U.C.C. section 2-606(1)(c). In Joseph Heiting and Sons v. Jacks Bean Co, 463 N.W.2d 817, 236 Neb. 765 (Neb.,1990), Heiting (Plaintiff) offered to sell its beans at the posted price on September 30, 1987, but was never informed of acceptance or rejection of the offer. Heiting and Jacks

15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

In the Hoffman Vs. Sun Valley Company case, where the Sun Valley Company won, despite there being an oral agreement. The prerequisite memorandum form for the sale of the Rudd Mountain property, was not signed to fully close the deal. Thus, the oral agreement was declared void by failure to comply with the statute of frauds.

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

• Contracts were exchanged on 2 May 2005 for the purchase of property for $2,130,000 between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

The evidence showed that the contract to purchase appellant’s business and the promissory note were signed only by Joe Alexander on behalf of the corporation. Harris’ wife testified that appellees were not present when the contract was signed.

Section 3.2 Authority. The Seller has full corporate power, authority and legal right to execute and deliver, and to perform its obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereunder, and has taken all necessary action to authorize the purchase hereunder on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by the Seller and constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws from time to time in effect, which affect the enforcement of creditors' rights in general and by general principles of equity regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in

On November 15, 2016, Plaintiffs, Lauren Katz (“Lauren”) and Phyllis Rifkin (“Phyllis”), filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for equitable relief to prevent the sale of the residence in which they currently reside. The general thrust of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint centers around a power of attorney executed by Daniel Katz (“Daniel”), naming his son, Defendant Martin Katz (“Martin”), as attorney-in-fact. Complaint, ¶ 9. Contemporaneous to the filing of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Martin from selling his father’s home in order to finance Daniel’s ongoing and significant medical expenses. This Court denied the motion

If Seller fails to comply with this contract for any other reason, Seller will be in default and Buyer may, as Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy, terminate this contract and receive from Seller the deposit, thereby releasing both parties from the contract.

The Parties involved: Peter O. Mattei (Appellant) vs. Amelia F. Hopper (Respondent) Counselors: Jay R. Martin and William F. Sharon (Counselors for Appellant.) Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold, George R. Gordon, John L. Garaventa and Dean Ormsby (Counselors for Respondent). Mattei is a real estate developer who was planning to build a shopping center on land that was owned by Hopper. Mattei approached Hopper, the owner of said property with an offer of $57,000, which both parties agreed on.

C. G. Blake Co. v. W. R. Smith & Son, Ltd., 147 Va. 960 (Va. 1926) "…If by mutuality of obligation is meant, as some courts have suggested, that there must be an undertaking on one side and a consideration on the other, the necessity for its existence cannot be questioned. But if, as other courts have said, mutuality of obligation means that a contract must be binding on both parties so that an action may be maintained by one against the other…”

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COVENANTS and agreements contained in this Sales Agreement the parties to this Agreement agree as follows:

The court held that the agreement between the parties was not contractual in nature. The conduct of the parties constituted an administrative arrangement by which the Administration in pursuance of its agricultural policy gave assistance to an owner to