Contract Scenario
Contract Scenario
Stanley Moore
Business Law 575
December 2, 2013
Professor Thomas Kershaw
Contract Scenario
Recently, Danny Davidson sold a family home to his friends Paul and Priscilla Peterson whereby entering into a $250,000 verbal agreement for the purchase of new home. However, Danny neglected to tell Paul and Priscilla about Ned the neighbor and the emerging dispute pertaining to the boundaries of the south property. Once the purchase was final the Petersons proceeded to invest an estimate of $65,000 for landscaping as well as implementing a new Italian bathtub in the bathroom. As the Peterson’s proceed to upgrade their new home cracks developed in the new tile whereby causing the bathroom floor to sink because of a landscaping issue with the soil on the property. Subsequently, a breach of contract emerged whereby causing the Peterson’s to file a suit against their friend.
Valid or Invalid Contract “According to Kubasek, et al, legally binding contract must include the necessary elements “such as,” legal object, capacity along with consideration (2012, p. 306). However, in the scenario the couple entered a verbal agreement with a friend for the purchase of the home “thereby,” contingent on the information provided by a friend. The consideration estimated $250,000 for the purchase of the home. Nevertheless, neither of the entities were minors or endured some form of mental illness or legally intoxicated whereby indicating that each party was in complete capacity entering the aspects of a verbal agreement. Consequently, the contract was legally binding because the instrument met the necessary elements of the legal object, consideration, and capacity renders the validity of the contract enforceable.
Breach and Statue of Fraud Conversely, the agreement between Danny and the couple lacked the elements of genuine assent because of a failure to disclose pertinent information pertaining to the neighbor’s boundary dispute along with the
Stanley Moore
Business Law 575
December 2, 2013
Professor Thomas Kershaw
Contract Scenario
Recently, Danny Davidson sold a family home to his friends Paul and Priscilla Peterson whereby entering into a $250,000 verbal agreement for the purchase of new home. However, Danny neglected to tell Paul and Priscilla about Ned the neighbor and the emerging dispute pertaining to the boundaries of the south property. Once the purchase was final the Petersons proceeded to invest an estimate of $65,000 for landscaping as well as implementing a new Italian bathtub in the bathroom. As the Peterson’s proceed to upgrade their new home cracks developed in the new tile whereby causing the bathroom floor to sink because of a landscaping issue with the soil on the property. Subsequently, a breach of contract emerged whereby causing the Peterson’s to file a suit against their friend.
Valid or Invalid Contract “According to Kubasek, et al, legally binding contract must include the necessary elements “such as,” legal object, capacity along with consideration (2012, p. 306). However, in the scenario the couple entered a verbal agreement with a friend for the purchase of the home “thereby,” contingent on the information provided by a friend. The consideration estimated $250,000 for the purchase of the home. Nevertheless, neither of the entities were minors or endured some form of mental illness or legally intoxicated whereby indicating that each party was in complete capacity entering the aspects of a verbal agreement. Consequently, the contract was legally binding because the instrument met the necessary elements of the legal object, consideration, and capacity renders the validity of the contract enforceable.
Breach and Statue of Fraud Conversely, the agreement between Danny and the couple lacked the elements of genuine assent because of a failure to disclose pertinent information pertaining to the neighbor’s boundary dispute along with the
References: Glasner, K. (2000). Contract Disputes. Dispute Resolution Journal, 55(3), 50-55. Kubasek, Browne, Giampetro-Meyver, Barkaks, Dhooge, Williamson, N. (2012). Dynamic Business Law (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Wilkerson-Ryan & Hoffman, T. (2010). Breach Is For Suckers. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63(4), 1001-1045.