Comparing The Contract Between Joel King And Barber
Was the Contract between Joel King and Barber bilateral or unilateral?
The basic premise of determining whether a contract is either bilateral or unilateral is a consideration, which implies a legally binding action for the accomplishment of an agreement. In addition to consideration, the promise to execute a contract must involve either one of the parties making offers and the other consenting. Moreover, for an agreement to be considered valid in any court of law, it must legitimate, mutually beneficial, and not illusionary. Contextually the contract between King and Barber is bilateral because the negotiations involved both parties mutually benefiting from a legal perspective, and earnest money would seal the deal.
According to the case study, both parties signed a contract stating that Joel would relinquish the ownership rights of LeBrond property to Barber on condition that a small strip of land abu10’ by 80’ would be conveyed to him at the closing of the deal for $1. Moreover, Joel agreed to offset costs related to the conveyance of the small parcel. According to Joel, the agreement was to discourage other buys from competitively bidding on the …show more content…
According to the Supreme Court, an agreement is legally binding in the presence of a consideration, which may be either a benefit or detriment to the promisor and promise, respectively. Accordingly, the Joel King and Barber contract was valid because there was a consideration. Specifically, both parties signed a contract with a real estate agent, which accepted earnest money amounting to $1000 to seal the deal. Considering the benefits and detriments of both parties, King would relinquish ownership privileges of LeBrond to Barber in exchange for the rear parcel. Therefore, the agreement had no ambiguity, and no material fact was disputed; hence, the contract was bilateral, and the summary judgment should have been awarded to Joel
The basic premise of determining whether a contract is either bilateral or unilateral is a consideration, which implies a legally binding action for the accomplishment of an agreement. In addition to consideration, the promise to execute a contract must involve either one of the parties making offers and the other consenting. Moreover, for an agreement to be considered valid in any court of law, it must legitimate, mutually beneficial, and not illusionary. Contextually the contract between King and Barber is bilateral because the negotiations involved both parties mutually benefiting from a legal perspective, and earnest money would seal the deal.
According to the case study, both parties signed a contract stating that Joel would relinquish the ownership rights of LeBrond property to Barber on condition that a small strip of land abu10’ by 80’ would be conveyed to him at the closing of the deal for $1. Moreover, Joel agreed to offset costs related to the conveyance of the small parcel. According to Joel, the agreement was to discourage other buys from competitively bidding on the …show more content…
According to the Supreme Court, an agreement is legally binding in the presence of a consideration, which may be either a benefit or detriment to the promisor and promise, respectively. Accordingly, the Joel King and Barber contract was valid because there was a consideration. Specifically, both parties signed a contract with a real estate agent, which accepted earnest money amounting to $1000 to seal the deal. Considering the benefits and detriments of both parties, King would relinquish ownership privileges of LeBrond to Barber in exchange for the rear parcel. Therefore, the agreement had no ambiguity, and no material fact was disputed; hence, the contract was bilateral, and the summary judgment should have been awarded to Joel