Sandy V. Mark Case Brief

In the case between Michael Franz David Willms and Manisha Willms and Macdonald builders (Celtic Homes) Ltd, outlines a “breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation” (Willms v. MacDonald Builders (Celtic Homes) Ltd., 2016), and contains the application of the builder’s lien act. The plaintiffs had come to and agreement with the defendant to renovate their house. However the Plaintiffs argue that the conduct of the defendant led to the creation of many deficiencies, which ultimately led to the project not being completed to the level of satisfaction the plaintiffs desired. This in turn led to legal action.

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

-the reasoning: the letter agreement left the point of delivery up to future negotiation and was not specific to all essential terms. The letter was unenforceable agreement to agree and there was no contract.

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

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

● Assumption of the risk: If plaintiff is aware of the danger, but decides to subject

The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.

In the book, Dred Scott v. Sandford, they discuss the Dred Scott case and the problems that arose from the case. Basically, the Supreme Court overreached its bounds in regards to the case it oversaw. The court was asked to decide on the fate of Dred Scott and his family in regards to their freedom. Instead, they overreached and decided on constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and the overall citizenship of all those of African descent. This brought the matter of slavery to the forefront of everyone’s mind in America. It thoroughly destroyed the status quo of the North and South.

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is regarding a slave in Missouri, his name was Dred Scott who resided in Illinois from the years 1833 to 1843. Illinois was considered to be a free state at this time, he lived in an area of the Louisiana Territory, this was a place where slavery was completely forbidden from the Missouri Compromise in 1830. Eventually Scott returned to Missouri, after doing so he decided to sue the Missouri court for his freedom, he was unsuccessful. His argument was that he claimed residency in a free territory area and this would make him a free man. Since this did not work Scott brought a new suit in federal court. But Scott’s master maintained that since he was a pure-blooded Negro of the African descent and also the descendant

6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?

Mantrako’s and I had very similar conclusions on what legal actions would take place regarding Martin’s property. Mantrako used a lot of great legal concepts to handle the loss of Martin’s property. One thing I would have expressed differently to Martin is what to expect due to losing he coastal property to Tarheel Family Resort. As Martin’s attorney, I would have been more direct with Martin by explaining that the city of Wilmington has every right to seize Martin’s private owned property due to eminent domain. The Tarheel Family Resort will benefit the public due to increasing tourism, creating jobs, and bringing more business to the community. I would recommend Martin to review the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision during the Kelo vs. City of

Peter booked a room for a week at Macgregor Hotel. At the reception desk, where he made the booking, was a notice limiting the hotel’s liability for loss of, damage to guest’s property.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.