Transfer of Property Law

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.

Filburn established that Congress could regulate exclusively local activities under the Agricultural Adjustment Act when those activities are “part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce” (Maj. 4). The facts of Filburn and Raich are similar, and the Court uses classic syllogism—in which judges determine whether a legal rule set forth in one case applies to another by looking for similarity between each case’s facts (Levi 2)—to link the two cases. But the Court’s syllogism uses more than facts. It also uses the CSA’s purpose and its effects as additional mechanisms to bridge it with the AAA. That is where the traditional classic syllogism approach takes a pragmatist turn.

• The infringement serves a “valid legislative objective.” The court suggested a valid legislative objective would be conservation of natural resources, in which First Nations interest would come second only to that;

A contract is defined as, “a legally enforceable exchange of promises or an exchange of a promise for an act that assures that parties to the agreement that their promises will be enforceable (Kubasek 2015).” Contracts are essential for businesses to conduct business with one another. Before delving too far into the Muscadine grape case, it is also important to note that a sale is the, “passing of title to goods from buyer to seller for a price (Kubasek 2015)” and that a good is considered, “tangible personal property (Kubasek 2015).” Muscadine grapes and their by-products are the goods in question. When considering any legal case it is important to first consider the facts and the issues that are being considered.

Starting from the beginning, the original post the sale, on November 1, Dr. Peters wanted to sell 850 tubes of toothpaste. In the sale ad it states "Write me if wanting to accept". Therefore, Sam did in fact put a check in the mail the same day, November 1. This is considered to be a part of the mailbox rule in which "an acceptance sent via the postal system or by courier is effective when sent" ((Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 127). Therefore, the acceptance of the sale is a contract between Sam and Dr. Peters. However, a written contract should have followed; as it states in the Statutes of Fraud that in order to be legally binding, sales dealing with "personal property of $500 or more" must "be in writing to be legally enforceable" (Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 201). The two parties have entered into a valid and express contract.

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.

The Supreme Court decision that promoted economic development by rejecting the absolute sanctity of contracts when they conflicted with improvements for the good

One of the claims in this proceeding is the BEP Blue Gum Project which was formerly owned by Euan Pescott, brother to Roger Pescott. In 1999, Euan Pescott and BEP Management Pty Ltd entered into an agreement that requires BEP to establish and manage a eucalyptus plantation on the land provided by Euan Pescott. As a result, Euan Pescott had made a total payment of $ 1,076,253.46 to BEP throughout the years. In 2007, the directors of Environinvest decided to purchase the project by creating a document which is alleged to bear the false date of 1st July 1999. It acts as a false documentation of purchase, and with that Euan Pescott transferred the plantation to S.T.Y.A with the total amount

For example, we have the right to privacy. Natural law is based on a higher authority and having a basic sense of right and wrong. The rights are god given American rights that no one can take away. No law can contradict the basic values given by god. 2. Subject matter is the broader question of who has the jurisdiction over the matter. Such as, would it be appropriate to file a family law case at the federal level vs. filing at state court. Personal Jurisdiction has a narrower question as to which federal court or state court has jurisdiction over the party. III. Case Problem and Writing Assignment Issues Does the granite producer from Washington have a claim under the Dormant Commerce Clause Rule Regulation of commerce is allowed if it pursues a legitimate end, rationally related to that end if it doesnt disrupt interstate commerce. Analysis Given the provided information, the city of Fresberg is trying to boost the productivity of the granite industry within its city limits. This is in good intention with the citys economy in mind but it fails to notice that it affects interstate commerce. The Washington contractor and those soon to follow cannot do business in the State of Confusion because of this. Under the Dormant Commerce Clause the city cannot impose any ordinance that affects the interstate commerce. What is advised is that Fresberg should take of the portion that limits

In this case, there are two issues that emerge; the first entails as to whether Johnson, who is a farmer should be treated as a merchant according to the definition of the Universal Commercial Code. The other issue that emerges in the case concerns as to whether the oral contract made between the two parties of selling 600 bushels at the price of $ 4.02 should constitute a binding contract.

This case is an appeal to the Supreme Court made by the Village of Euclid (the Appellee) to contest the original findings of the trial court. The lower court found that the normal use of the land was for commercial and industrial purposes, thereby giving the case to the Ambler Realty Co. The Village of Euclid decided to take the case to the Supreme Court as they felt it was within their police power to protect the residencies in the immediate area of the originally-zoned industrial park of Ambler Realty Co.

In this case, the next week, Pat moved into the house, begins living in it, and made substantial improvements. The improvement consisted of installing new carpets, window coverings, and a patio cover. The improvements, spanning a period of six (6) months, amounted to a cost of $8,000. With respect to a contract, Dan might argue that there was not a contract, or that the contract was outside the Statue of Frauds. However, any arguments to nullify the Statue of Frauds are not likely to be successful. In most instances courts attempt to find evidence that this defense is not supportable. Performance is more relevant in this case. A contract for the sale of real property will be enforceable if the buyer has taken possession and has made permanent improvements upon it. Of course, the extent of the improvements required for enforcement varies from jurisdiction

The High Court has as of late considered the fraud special case to indefeasibility of title of land possession in the case of Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd. The decision permits a wife to keep a half benefit for a dairy farm property in spite of paying no thought for it and just being the beneficiary of that intrigue due to her spouse 's fraud. The misfortune here is the party denied of a benefit for the land by fraud, while the victor is obviously the unwitting beneficiary of that interest.

With the permission of the seller, Broker A submits a listing to MLS inviting cooperating brokers to help find a buyer. This is an offer of: