Mutuality of Consideration

Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust Company is a case that involves a formal bilateral contract that was entered into by businessman Bruce Bickham and G. S. Adams, Jr., Vice President of the Washington Bank & Trust Company in 1976 (Cheeseman, 2013). According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Bickham would conduct his personal and corporate banking with Washington Bank & Trust and the bank would provide loans to Bickham at 7.5 percent interest rate with 10 years to repay the loans. The language of this bilateral contract translates to what is referred to as a “promise for a promise” whereby no act of performance is necessary to form this kind of contract… and it is an enforceable contract (Cheeseman, 2013). The findings of

Mary should decrease her reservation price for the house because there is only one proposition; on the other hand, this couple seems to be very interested by her house. However, the reservation price cannot decrease until $170.000, but it cannot reach the $215.000 as well.

Jim and Laura Buyer visit the local car dealership because they are interested in buying a new car. The car they currently have is aging and is starting to have mechanical problems. Jim and Laura would share the new car, and use it to go back and forth to work and school. Before going to the dealership, Jim and Laura decide that they can only afford $400.00 a month in car payments.

In order to advise Billy in whether he is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm, the key facts and relevant issues must be examined to determine if the elements of a legally binding contract exists. Whether there was an agreement and intention to create legal relations between the two will be used to determine whether Choy has breached a contract between the two. If a contract is found to

In the case of Sam vs. Quinn, his landlord, and the national chain store. Sam is who is working on a great innovation, a device that sounds like a barking dog that will help assist in the safety and welfare of others. Several months ago, Sam hit the jackpot that would change his life and landed in a verbal contract to sell 1000 units to a national chain store. However, this young inventor has been mass producing this product from his place of residence, his apartment, own by Mr. Quinn. Sam arrives home one day to find two letters, one from the chain store demanding the 1000 units be delivered immediately. The other was an eviction notice from Mr. Quinn stating that his barking machine has been pestering the other tenants and that Sam was not supposed to be conducting business from his apartment. Sam is furious at both situations and decides to pro-sue the matters. Therefore, before the court can rule on these cases, the court should determine the various elements whether there is a valid contract, a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam’s claims.

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.”

Rule : : Contract formation requires mutual assent (offer and acceptance), consideration, and no viable defenses to contract formation.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

There are many ideas about the correct basis for contractual obligation. They include promise, consideration, and cause. All jurisdictions follow at least one. In Thomas E. Davitt’s The Elements of Law, the author articulates a very credible argument for the basis for contractual obligation being one of those named above. Davitt simplifies the arguments for all of these and names one correct basis: the promise itself. Generally Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., The Elements of Law, 272 (1959). This paper will argue in favor of Davitt’s writings. The basis for contractual obligation is the promise itself. In order to effectively argue in favor of one basis over the possible others, it is necessary to discuss and rule out the others.

Having accepted a new job as a master gardener, Justin must decide between two eligible pickup trucks to help him transport varying sizes of materials and equipment. With only two thousand dollars saved for this purchase, which truck is the right one for Justin? The first option is Pickup Truck A, a bright red truck with a few dents around it and a price tag that reads three thousand dollars. Manufactured in 1998, this truck has an odometer that has reached a staggering one hundred thousand miles. Interior-wise, this truck is very clean, but the seats are worn and torn from being used too much. From an economical standpoint, Pickup Truck A is better due to its six cylinder engine, which consumes less gas. Furthermore, as a safety precaution,

Whether TV Treats will be bound by the banking contract form depends on a number of factors; whether the contract was properly executed, whether outsiders are affected by management irregularities, and whether Kevin had authority to warrant that the document was genuine.

When one party receives a check and transfers it, is the transferee a holder in due course? The response to this question is it depends on the facts and circumstances. The assumption and implication of good faith plays a role in determining a holder in due course. In our case, one party is attempting to take advantage of the other through fraud and deceit. This paper explores who is a holder in due course, the influence of fraud and deceit, the role of the stop payment, and who is responsible when a situation goes wrong.

Bj Carter and Chris Carter are siblings and business partners. They have to decide to run their race car in a high stakes race against tougher competition than they have seen all year. The problem being, their car has failed 7 times out of 24 this season and if it fails in this race, not only will they be out a $50,000 engine, but they will also be out a full season contract from Goodstone worth two million per year. If they decide not to race, they will be out $15,000 in entry fees and for sure lose Goodstone and end up $80,000 in debt on the season. Lastly, if they race and they do blow and engine, they will lose a sponsorship worth $80,000 from oil company because they don’t want their name on a car that

1. Define future and options contracts and provide an example of settling accounts of two customers that have taken opposing sides in these contracts.

In the end both firm come to agreement of on cost both firms would then come to terms with a viable option discussing money.