Fraud And Non Est Factum

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

EC 1.3 (B),(E), ABA 3.4(D)- When Carl asked Jane what her monthly living expenses added up to, as per attorney Howe’s specific instructions to do so, Jane gave an estimate and then suggested that Carl write down a much larger amount so that she could defraud the courts into possibly giving her a larger alimony. Carl assisted in such fraud when he recorded the amount as a fact, knowing that the client had given him false information.

Facts: Reed the newly homebuyer purchased a home from Mr. King under false pretenses and decided to dispute the order of the Superior Court of Nevada County (California), which dismissed Reed’s complaint about misrepresented in the purchase of a home without having full insight from the defendants and his real estate agents. The plaintiff is suing for rescission of the real estate contract. She believes she was involved in a breach of duty because all the information did not disclose about the home.

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

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.

40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract.

Facts: John Peck sold a piece of land to Robert Fletcher. Since the original sale from Peck was invalid, Peck committed a breach of contract.

Facts: The case arose over the prospective purchase of a residence in Baltimore, Maryland. Buyers Rebecca Cochran, Robert Cochran, Hope Grove and Robert Grove sought to buy property from seller Eileen Norkunas. The buyers presented to Ms. Norkunas a letter of intent where they specified that the two parties would execute a standard Maryland Realtors contract to finalize the purchase. The parties signed the letter of intent on March 7, 2004 and presented Ms. Norkunas a deposit check for $5,000. Shortly there after, the seller received a contract and addenda to “effect the transaction”.

FACTS: Theadores W. Ross conveyed her home to Peter R. Cournoyer via a quitclaim deed. In addition to the standard statement consideration, i.e., “consideration of $10.00 and other valuable consideration,” the deed also stated, “This quitclaim deed is being given with the consideration being love and affection.” After the deed was recorded, Cournoyer sold the property to Luis and Gladys Perez for $50,000.00. The purchase money came from mortgage that the Perezs gave to Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association (plaintiff). Thereafter, Mrs. Ross brought suit to rescind and cancel her deed to Cournoyer citing the absence of valuable consideration.

The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.

“substantial aggravating circumstances” necessary to transform a breach of contract claim into an UDTPA claim. Accordingly, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate.

In the West London County Court proceeding were brought by Ghaidan. Judge Cowell granted a declaration that Godin-Mendoza did not succeed to the tenancy of the flat as the surviving spouse, but became entitled to an assured tenancy of the flat by succession as a member of the original tenant’s family.

Cases under unilateral mistake can be divided into three categories: Firstly mistaken identity, secondly mistake as to the terms of a contract and thirdly mistake as to the nature of a document signed. The main focus in this discussion is mistaken identity, where one party is mistaken as to the identity of another. Mistaken identity may happen in two different