Geacock Hotel Vs Shipman Case Study
Peacock Hotel, Inc. v. Shipman (appeal)
This appeal was presented to the Florida court by Cordelia Shipman and her husband A. K. Shipman from Miami against the Peacock hotel represented by Coral Peacock and her daughter Cecil A. Peacock from Miami as well. The appeal was from a final decree of foreclosure of the purchase-money mortgage. The Shipmans made a contract with Ms. Peacock, an inexperienced in business widow, and her daughter, a minor, for the sale of the Hotel with the premises of the women continuing the payment for the hotel mortgage after the sale was completed.
The couple alleged error in the refusal of the court to make effective their claim that the mortgage was obtained by a fraudulent sale, and that they should be allowed …show more content…
to rescind the transaction. On the other hand, Ms. Peacock affirmed that fraud and misrepresentations in regards to the number of revenue rooms and the building's conditions were perpetrated by the married couple to induce them to purchase the building covered by the mortgage which was sought to be foreclosed. This action caused her to be formed to take title over the Hotel for business purposes and to execute the mortgage. After paying $125,000 as bargain for the hotel, and with the misrepresentation made by the Shipmans, Peacock asked for affirmative relief as a counterclaim.
The court ruled in favor of the Peacocks by affirming the decree in equity asked by them. Even though the court expressed that the victimized party was in fault for her carelessness when she entered into the contract by taking only the word of the seller, the court recognized that unjust enrichment had been gained by one party, in this case the Shipmans.
It is clear that contractual procedural unconscionability was present in this contract. It is unethical to lie about the future earnings of an asset, and even more to misrepresent actual size as well as state of the property. In my opinion, the withholding of performance, in this case the payments, by the Peacocks should not be considered as a breach of the initial contract since this contract can be considered voidable. Only the Peacocks should be able to rescind the contract and even ask for compensatory damages from the Shipmans.
Information retrieved from:
Florida Supreme Court. (1931, November 20). Peacock hotel, Inc. V. Shipman. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from Find a Case, http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19311120_0041104.FL.htm/qx
GARRETT V.
JANIEWSKI
This appeal is based on a previous trial for the stop of payments due to in an abrupt change in rent prices, and was brought to the Florida district court of appeals by Alan and Nancy Garrett, the new owners of a mobile home park. They appeal a final judgment in favor of forty-six tenants from the mobile home park who refused to perform payment. The couple asked for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages coming from the agreements for the mobile home lots.
In the first trial, the court found the Garretts liable to the tenants for substantive and procedural unconscionability. Tenants maintained that the new rental prices placed by the owners were above the fair market value of the lots. Moreover, most of the unit homes in the property were virtually unmovable and after years of depreciation most of them were not accepted by other mobile home parks. Therefore, even if the tenants wanted to leave, that was not reasonably doable due to the age of the units which made almost impossible the option for the tenants to find substitutes unless they purchase new mobile homes. The court declared procedural unconscionability due to the unfair bargaining position of the Garrets with respect to the tenants, and substantive unconscionability because there was proof that the rent charged was above the fair market rental
value.
On the appeal the park owners contended the trial court erred. They affirmed that the tenants rolled back the rent for one and a half year prior to filing the suit. Even though the court of appeals accepted the trial’s findings of $50 overcharge from the market price as not equal with the current rentals from other similar parks, this difference did not show a substantial unconscionable amount that was “shocking to the conscience” or “monstrously harsh” for them. The court sustained that the prerequisites for procedural unconscionability were too individualized in this case to allow a class action. They stated that there was inadequate proof of the tenants’ circumstances. Consequently, the trial decision was reversed and remanded.
It is clear that tenants breached the contract by withholding performance of payment in this case, nevertheless, I do think that the contract was unconscionable, and that the court of appeals failed on their judgement. It wasn’t ethical for the Garrets to keep increasing prices over the fair market value without consideration for the tenants. I agree with the trial court that the Garrets performed procedural unconscionability since they knew that due to the hardship of moving the units to other park, the tenants would rather sign the contract without regards of the higher prices. The disparate bargaining power in this case should be enough to defend the appellees and even give them the compensation of the $50 over price back.
Information retrieved from:
District Court of Appeals of Florida. (1985, September 25). GARRETT V. JANIEWSKI. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15335865999472094256&q=Garrett+v.+Janiewski&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1
This appeal was presented to the Florida court by Cordelia Shipman and her husband A. K. Shipman from Miami against the Peacock hotel represented by Coral Peacock and her daughter Cecil A. Peacock from Miami as well. The appeal was from a final decree of foreclosure of the purchase-money mortgage. The Shipmans made a contract with Ms. Peacock, an inexperienced in business widow, and her daughter, a minor, for the sale of the Hotel with the premises of the women continuing the payment for the hotel mortgage after the sale was completed.
The couple alleged error in the refusal of the court to make effective their claim that the mortgage was obtained by a fraudulent sale, and that they should be allowed …show more content…
to rescind the transaction. On the other hand, Ms. Peacock affirmed that fraud and misrepresentations in regards to the number of revenue rooms and the building's conditions were perpetrated by the married couple to induce them to purchase the building covered by the mortgage which was sought to be foreclosed. This action caused her to be formed to take title over the Hotel for business purposes and to execute the mortgage. After paying $125,000 as bargain for the hotel, and with the misrepresentation made by the Shipmans, Peacock asked for affirmative relief as a counterclaim.
The court ruled in favor of the Peacocks by affirming the decree in equity asked by them. Even though the court expressed that the victimized party was in fault for her carelessness when she entered into the contract by taking only the word of the seller, the court recognized that unjust enrichment had been gained by one party, in this case the Shipmans.
It is clear that contractual procedural unconscionability was present in this contract. It is unethical to lie about the future earnings of an asset, and even more to misrepresent actual size as well as state of the property. In my opinion, the withholding of performance, in this case the payments, by the Peacocks should not be considered as a breach of the initial contract since this contract can be considered voidable. Only the Peacocks should be able to rescind the contract and even ask for compensatory damages from the Shipmans.
Information retrieved from:
Florida Supreme Court. (1931, November 20). Peacock hotel, Inc. V. Shipman. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from Find a Case, http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19311120_0041104.FL.htm/qx
GARRETT V.
JANIEWSKI
This appeal is based on a previous trial for the stop of payments due to in an abrupt change in rent prices, and was brought to the Florida district court of appeals by Alan and Nancy Garrett, the new owners of a mobile home park. They appeal a final judgment in favor of forty-six tenants from the mobile home park who refused to perform payment. The couple asked for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages coming from the agreements for the mobile home lots.
In the first trial, the court found the Garretts liable to the tenants for substantive and procedural unconscionability. Tenants maintained that the new rental prices placed by the owners were above the fair market value of the lots. Moreover, most of the unit homes in the property were virtually unmovable and after years of depreciation most of them were not accepted by other mobile home parks. Therefore, even if the tenants wanted to leave, that was not reasonably doable due to the age of the units which made almost impossible the option for the tenants to find substitutes unless they purchase new mobile homes. The court declared procedural unconscionability due to the unfair bargaining position of the Garrets with respect to the tenants, and substantive unconscionability because there was proof that the rent charged was above the fair market rental
value.
On the appeal the park owners contended the trial court erred. They affirmed that the tenants rolled back the rent for one and a half year prior to filing the suit. Even though the court of appeals accepted the trial’s findings of $50 overcharge from the market price as not equal with the current rentals from other similar parks, this difference did not show a substantial unconscionable amount that was “shocking to the conscience” or “monstrously harsh” for them. The court sustained that the prerequisites for procedural unconscionability were too individualized in this case to allow a class action. They stated that there was inadequate proof of the tenants’ circumstances. Consequently, the trial decision was reversed and remanded.
It is clear that tenants breached the contract by withholding performance of payment in this case, nevertheless, I do think that the contract was unconscionable, and that the court of appeals failed on their judgement. It wasn’t ethical for the Garrets to keep increasing prices over the fair market value without consideration for the tenants. I agree with the trial court that the Garrets performed procedural unconscionability since they knew that due to the hardship of moving the units to other park, the tenants would rather sign the contract without regards of the higher prices. The disparate bargaining power in this case should be enough to defend the appellees and even give them the compensation of the $50 over price back.
Information retrieved from:
District Court of Appeals of Florida. (1985, September 25). GARRETT V. JANIEWSKI. Retrieved November 13, 2016, from Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15335865999472094256&q=Garrett+v.+Janiewski&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1