Memorandum of Law Final Paper

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.

This memorandum assesses the merits of Anne Peters’ in West Palm Beach, Florida, for possible claims against Don and Betty Detman for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for violation of Florida’s Spite Fence statute.

Here, it is likely the court will hold that Ms. Jordan and Mr. Wood mutually agreed to a marital status. First, unlike In Re Estate of Hunsaker, the court may not determine that a subjective intent was explicitly acknowledged. See id. at 286. In contrast to In Re Estate of Hunsaker, in which the couples felt married, Ms. Jordan never explicitly states whether or not she or Mr. Wood felt married. See id. at 286. However, Mr. Woods will likely argue that Ms. Jordan’s previous outward communication suggests they had at one point in their relationship they both felt married.

This letter is to inform you, that your tax appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 6, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. The hearing will be held at the County Office building located at 211 Race Road. The court room is located on the 5th floor.

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

-The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant

(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an owner, lessee, or occupant of land may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land if:

A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.

Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) Husband filed a cross-bill on claims of his wife’s adultery, and persuasion to sign a property settlement agreement without consultation with counsel. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The husband claimed he was coerced into signing the papers with a false pretense of his wife’s eventual return to the family home. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989)

In addition, he argued that the contract involved was oral and could not be proven under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 400.2-201 since it entailed the involvement of above $ 500 and was not in writing confirmed by him. On the other hand, the Missouri Farmers Association countered the arguments of Johnson by stating that Johnson was involved as a merchant according to the code definition and the oral contract became admissible under the subsection 2 of 400.2-201.

The first issue that must go satisfied or unsatisfied is whether or not the restriction from the covenant not to compete was greater than necessary to protect to legitimate interests of Suffolk Speech. Id. The court must evaluate a few things when determining whether this element is satisfied or not. Important factors to determine if the restriction is greater than necessary includes the size of the company,

• Improve case management system to identify cases filed under multiple overlapping jurisdictions to avoid conflicting court order, duplicative services, ineffective use of judicial resources, and easy identification of duplicative jurisdictional cases for consolidation.

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…”

2) Do you think Shanley believes this situation would have been avoided under contractualism? Why or why not? (demonstrate understanding of Shanley's critique of

It would be argued that the terms ‘expenses’ and ‘costs’ raise issues of uncertainty. As courts endeavour to avoid ‘being the destroyer of bargains’, uncertain terms will be interpreted by ascertaining the intention of the parties. In this case, the terms are capable of a meaning and accordingly cannot be held to be void for uncertainty. Following Barwick CJ’s reasoning, the concept of ‘expenses’ and ‘costs’ incurred is certain in that it provides a criterion by which the monetary price can be logically worked out.