Find Your Free Essay Examples

What Rocky Mountain Races Inc

What Rocky Mountain Races Inc. did, in terms of not giving the previous amount of $10,000 to whoever won the “Pioneer Trail Ultramarathon” and not just Monica, should not be seen as a breach of a contract. Specifically, the contract was established between Rocky Mountain Inc. when Monica signed up for the marathon, the rules that were provided to all states that the hosting company reserves the right to make changes to the race at any given time. The type of contract that was established between the leading finisher (Monica) and Rocky Mountain Inc. is considered a unilateral contact. In the textbook it states that “a case of unilateral contract wherein offeree enters into contract by starting the action and completing the same. So there is a promise to act.” Monica, by signing up for the marathon, agreed to the performance of such, and therefore is entitled to the money prize. Rocky Mountain is obligated to reward a cash prize with the completion of the race, but is not legally subjected to hold to its original offer of $10,000.

Ball cannot hold Sullivan into a contract that is pretty much non-existent. Sullivan is simply stating his minimum price of $60,000 in order for him to sell his land. Sullivan’s statement does not create a contract, so he is entitled to accept other offers that he may receive. Since Ball cannot hold Sullivan accountable for selling his land to him, there is nothing that he can do, as far as taking Sullivan to court and what not. With that said, if Sullivan writes back to Ball, stating that he accepts the bare minimum of $60,000, it then does establish a simple contract between the two. But since Sullivan neither denies nor accepts Ball’s offer, he is not liable to anything.

Kalen’s situation is a bit difficult being that he is a minor, but in most situations, minors can still be held accountable to a contract. But in most cases, contracts do have ways for a party to void it. In the case of Kalen and his landlord, Kalen demonstrates the voidance of his contract by leaving the keys with his now former landlord. Because of my experience with similar contracts, Kalen should not be liable to the balance of payments due under the lease, because his actions abandon the contract he was previously bound to.

Given Jerome is totally dependent on the assistance from his nephew Philip, by Philip forcing his uncle into a contract for signing off land to him for 30% less than market value is not considered voluntary consent. Sure Jerome reluctantly agreed and entered into such contract, but he was pretty forced into this given contract. What Jerome needs to do is have proof of Philip pretty much blackmailing his uncle for a plot of land, and this would void such a contract. And by proving that Philip threatened Jerome; this would prove illegal actions taking place, Jerome would also potentially do time in prison for his actions.

In the case of VanHorn and Barton, it seems to be that VanHorn unintentionally mismanaged her agreement with Lauren Barton. Lauren Barton took a job under VanHorn assuming that she was getting paid the annual salary of which she had been promised ($72,000). Barton as a plaintiff, should be awarded the full amount, in consideration that she had to transfer custody of her children all the way in London. Barton also forfeited her husband’s alimony and child support payments by accepting the job offer, which costed her almost $30,000 to complete this whole process. To drop the offer down almost $50,000 after the whole process is horrendous, and justifies such victory for Ms. Barton.

In this case, consisting of movable personal property vs. real/intangible property; UCC only associates with movable personal property in this specific sale. Movable property being the truck line used in the requested delivery by Bailey. The contract expressed in this case specifically requests that Yellow Express Truck Line, and when the delivery was completed by Dependable Truck Line it breach said contract. Therefore Bailey would be proper in cancelling the contract.

Delegation is the act of transferring power or authority to another person. The term ‘delegation’ can be used in a number of ways, but when used in law, delegation can be expressed when passing down a specific case to a higher authority. For example, when cases involve the validity of a particular line in the constitution, these cases are brought up to the supreme court. Assignment means to transfer property or title rights under written agreement. The use of this term generally pertains to the handing down of trademarks, property rights, and titles to the buyer. This means that ‘assignment’ is more of a contract than when using the term ‘delegation,’ and must contain all the basic elements of a contract to be effective; legal capacity, consent, and most of all, the legality and legitimacy of said contract.

Definitions and Terms

Condition Precedent- Particular conditions that are to be met before a party’s promise becomes set in stone.

Condition Subsequent- Terms in the contract that will breach the contract, if occured.

Anticipatory Repudiation- When a party states that they will not perform an action that they are obligated to, as per the contract.

Disaffirmance- Denying the the existence or nullifying the validity of a contract.

Necessaries- Necessities required for life; food, water, shelter, medical attention, and clothes.

Promissory Estoppel- Written proof that can be used to enforce promises to be committed to by the promisee party.

Quasi Contract- An unwritten agreement, due to be completed by both parties, that are still enforceable by law.

Unjust Enrichment- When a party unfairly benefits by another’s mistake. Benefiting meaning they did not pay, work, etc. The plaintiff party must prove the following elements to prove unjust enrichment; “unfair enrichment, impoverishment, connection between enrichment and impoverishment, Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and an absence of a remedy provided by law.”

Adhesion Contract- Standard Contract involving one party stronger than the other that dictates the terms in the contract.

Bilateral Mistake- When both parties misinterpret a particular line in the established contract.

Unilateral Mistake- When one of the parties misinterpret a particular line in the said contract.