Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Sefton v. Hewitt
|
Legal Issues
Whether the contract is void under the Statute of Frauds. Holding The court ruled for the defendant. Rationale of the Court The court claimed they found that there was no enforceable contract |
|
|
Durick v. Ebay, Inc.
|
Legal Issues
Whether plaintiff or defendant breached contract; whether contract was clear and a matter of law or a matter of fact; whether an issue of material fact exists. Holding Granted summary judgment for the defendant. Rationale of the Court The court claimed there was no genuine issue whether material fact exists. |
|
|
Donnalley v. Sterling
|
I. Legal Issues
Whether plaintiff and the District breached the requirement of providing “qualified” personnel by failing to have a certified lifeguard patrol at the lake; whether defendant was an intended beneficiary or an incidental beneficiary. II. Holding The court ruled for the plaintiff III. Rationale of the Court The court claimed defendant was merely an incidental beneficiary. |
|
|
Cooper v. Smith
|
Legal Issues
Whether the Defendant should return the gifts due to an issue of consideration; whether the engagement ring should be treated differently than the rest of the gifts. Holding The court ruled for the defendant. Rationale of the Court The court of appeals held that the gifts made to the Defendant (other than the ring) were irrevocable gifts that he could not recover simply because his engagement ended. |
|
|
Lucy v. Zehmer
|
Legal Issues
Whether a valid contract exists; whether the Defendant’s intoxication plays a role in validity of contract; whether there was intent to enter a contract. Holding The court ruled for the plaintiff. Rationale of the Court The Defendant failed to indicate by word or by act that he was not serious about selling the farm. The Defendant’s acts and words could be reasonably interpreted by the Plaintiff as an offer to sell his farm after a 40 minute long conversation about the issue. Furthermore, the mental assent of the parties was not a requisite for the formation of a contract. |
|
|
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. The Chilson Family Trust
|
Legal Issue
Whether, under the facts of this case, rescission of a real estate purchase contract on grounds of lack of mutual assent is precluded because the misunderstanding relates to a legal description of the land. Whether the trial court, on the particular facts before it, correctly granted summary judgment rescinding the real estate purchase contract on the grounds of lack of mutual assent. Holding Rationale of the Court The trial court held there was a lack of mutual assent and granted summary judgment to the seller. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the facts did not present an issue of lack of mutual assent, but remanded for further proceedings on the theory of unilateral mistake. |
|
|
Henderson v. Quest Expeditions, Inc.
|
Legal Issues
Whether the conditions of the school buses provided by the Defendant is considered negligence despite the Waiver and Release of Liability; whether the release of liability is void; whether the waiver is enforceable because it may violate the public policy of the State. Holding The court ruled for the defendant. Rationale of the Court The court found that the waiver and release was not void and included that the defendant was not responsible for its own negligence. |
|
|
Harms v. Northland Ford Dealers
|
Legal Issues
Whether Northland has to abide by the rules that it announced, or the rules that were unannounced; which rules applied: the tournament rules required women to tee off from red women’s marker (less than 170 yards from hole) while the contest required a minimum yardage of 170. Holding The court ruled for the plaintiff. Rationale of the Court Contest is offer which binds offerer to promise when offeree performs. Court found no waiver and no estoppel, meaning Harms cannot be denied the prize. It was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court found that an enforceable contract existed between Grove and the dealership. |
|
|
Hamer v. Sidway
|
Legal Issues
Whether there was sufficient consideration to create a valid and enforceable contract. Holding The court ruled for the plaintiff. Rationale of the Court It was said, in general, that a waiver of any legal right at thee request of another party is sufficient consideration for a promise. Furthermore, under the bargain for consideration, the Plaintiff’s forbearance was arguably both a benefit to the Defendant and a detriment to the Plaintiff. The Defendant benefited by having his nephew refrain from certain conduct while the Plaintiff suffered a detriment by denying himself the enjoyment of that conduct. |
