Beachcomber Should Not Be Responsible

¶ … Beachcomber should not be responsible because this was a case of rescission for mutual mistake of fact. Both parties thought the dime was genuine as evidenced by the amount of money they paid for it. Since both parties-based payment on the assumption of authenticity, they were negligent in inspection so Boskett could not assume that Beachcomber should accept any risk of the coins potential value.

Deupree should win because there was fraud and also a breach of contract. Deupree signed the contract to purchase the home from the developer and the contract is binding even though there was no close. Deupree should recover for both the incidence of fraud and for the breach of contract because the developer knowingly lied and then misrepresented himself when he claimed there would be no problem acquiring approval for the boat slip. The developer knew that there would be problems getting approval and that Deupree would not have closed if he had known the true situation about the boat slip.

11.8 - could not find a viable line of reasoning for this one

11.10 Ohanian should win. An employee is usually deemed "at-will" if there is no specific term of employment. Thus, an at-will relationship can be ended by either side at any time and for any reason as well as for no reason. As long as the employee is not terminated for some illegal reason both sides are not held accountable. But in this case, the Avis representative made an oral express contract with Ohanian. Even though it was not written, the oral contract would oral limit the right to terminate at-will.

11/14 In this case the Equitable or Promissory Estoppel represents that Solondz conduct lead Atlantic to believe that he would follow through on the purchase and in most cases part performance entails a contract although not in writing. In this case Solondz did partially perform the contract with knowledge of the other Atlantic's need to reasonably rely on his activity. The statute of frauds should not be applied to protect Solondz.

11.15 A "statute of frauds" requires that they be signed by all parties to be bound by the contract. The way the case is worded, Knight did not accept the offer and that should have been his grounds for breaking the draft agreement as opposed to claiming the "statute of frauds" because in some states Under the Uniform Commercial Code, to satisfy the statute, the writing for the sale of goods need only be signed by the party to be charged, and a quantity term.

12.2 In this case the third party beneficiary could sue because they as the eventual residents of the buildings were the "intended third party beneficiary," even though no contract was established they still have rights that may be enforceable pursuant to the contract. They committee can establish a contract between the builder and contractor, provide a clear intent of each, demonstrate a breech by the faulty building and receive damages.

12.4 Unfortunately, I do not feel that, as the situation is worded, Einhorn can sue Seeley. In this situation, there is no implied contract between her and the locksmith. In other words, because she was a third party and only a guest I do not feel she can claim to have a contract with the locksmith and there is no culpability for negligence on the locksmith's part.

12.9 PEPCo cannot maintain the law suit because the contract specifically implied that that the contractor was prohibited from assigning "any moneys due" without the city's approval. "The Contractor shall not assign this contract or any part thereof, or any moneys due or to become due thereunder, without the written prior approval of the Owner. The court agreed and dismissed PEPCo's suit with prejudice." As worded, the city is not responsible.

12.13 Accord and satisfaction is an agreement to substitute an existing debt with an alternate form of discharging the debt. Because Pollock accepted the lower offer, if he was paid the $15,000 he would be done with remedy but if he was not paid the lower amount he could ask for the original amount. If he was paid the lower amount he could technically attempt to also get the promised two additional buyers although that may prove impossible to enforce. An agreement to accept less than was due in order to wrap up the matter allows the accord and satisfaction to eliminate the debt as the new agreement is rewritten as the total debt.