Blaw Cases Test 2

Beradis are attempting to set aside an agreement with their landlord. They stopped paying rent on their restaurant (over 800000) and are about to be sued. The Landlord's lawyers let them know that unless they conceded to a judgment then they would be evicted. They tried to refinance, but it failed. The landlord said, "We will allow the finance to go through on these conditions: You will pay us 100000. You will also pay us 100000 in three years will some interest. They enter into that agreement. Three years later file suit setting aside the settlement agreement because they signed this feeling like they didn't have a choice. The court picked up on two or three things before their challenge failed. They were represented by attorneys along the way. They were sophisticated business people who have been in business for decades, so they weren't being taken advantage of. The court said they knew what they were getting into.

The mother is 84 and son Lincoln live on a huge farm. The son was over 24 years works himself into a position to where he wants to acquire the farm from his mother. Buys the farm 680000. He uses a 24-year earlier appraisal as his price and gets it for 117000. He took her to an attorney's office and she had a hard time hearing. Other children didn't know anything about it because Lincoln asked her not to tell them. They agreed to set this up over an installment plan over 30 years with a little bit of interest. Other kids ultimately learn about it and they go nuts and encourage her to file a lawsuit to set it aside and she does. They said Lincoln exercise undue influence such that her will was overwhelmed because she was 84, lived with her son, and he appraised it in 1984 but refused 24 years later. Nobody who is thinking on their own at the age of 84 would agree to not collect money until they are 134 years old. The contract was voidable.

Gentlemen who worked for one company leapfrogs over into another company because they will start him out at a salary of 300k with promise of bonus of 300000 if it succeeds and fifty percent of stock. He gets to be a CEO. He got a written letter of engagement. What they planned on happening did not happening. He filed suit to try to get the compensation that he promised him. So, he misrepresented things. Fraud is reserved to a challenge of a contract's validity of things that are presently fact or happened in the past, not predictions and speculations. Make sure that the fraud is a current or past event. A promise of future profits is not fraud. It cannot be challenged because it dealt with future events.

A fact that was represented to the buyer of a home. 76 year old woman purchased a home that has been on the market a long time. Tell the neighbors that they have someone interested in the house. "Please don't let the buyer know the history of the house" Ms. Dorris moves into her new house. After the closing, a neighbor came into her house to let her know that ten years ago, a slaughter of a mother and her four children had occurred in the house. Ms. Dorris is now having a hard time being comfortable there and she wants to get out of the deal or a reduction in the sales price. While she paid 76k, it's probably only worth 65k because of the history. The defense said that the fact that she's challenging is not material to the transactions. It shouldn't have made a difference one way or another because the event is ten years old. The court looked at how it went down. They turned to the realtor and asked him why it was so important that the realtor ask the neighbors not to talk to her. They deemed it to be material because the sellers originally deemed it to be material. Good enough for you, good enough for the other side. This can go to trial. States now have very specific laws about what has to be disclosed.

Lessers are trying to get out of a deal. Irrigation rights for the horses, needed more acreage. They bought 18 acres and had double for irrigation rights. Sellers knew that it was going to be for horses. Claimed they had irrigation rights. Produced an old certificate saying as much. Sellers were wrong in thinking that. Sellers and buyers were both wrong. Does what they were wrong about matter? The people wouldn't have purchased the property but for the water rights. The court let them out of the contract.

Bank robbers are flashing guns and weapons and make out like bandits. Bank employees give the police all the information they need to identify, apprehend, and convict the three bank robbers. Three people were trying to lay claim to an award. Association in Kentucky puts out a thing that if someone helps to find bank robbers, they will give them $500. They were trying to figure out who's entitled to the money. Name all of these people as defendants in the court. We know we owe some of these people money, but we don't know who, so we're asking you to declare who is rightfully entitled to the award. One class that is dismissed is people that were there, but they didn't fill out their claim form in the proper manner. He didn't follow protocol, so they did not properly accept the offer. Another group are the employees that were working that day. The court referred to them as heroes. They were not inclined to award them because they felt that employees at the bank already had an obligation to do whatever they could to protect the business and employer's interest. Doing that which you are already obligated to do is not a detriment. Within the police officers we have one guy who is an off-duty deputy sheriffs. The others are state troopers. The ones who were on duty were not entitled to the money because they are already obligated to the public at law to participate in the legal system. The off-duty deputy was the lone soldier entitled to the 1500. He wasn't on duty. This occurred outside of his jurisdiction. All the steps he took was not a previous obligation.

Contractors working on a sewage system. They required the subcontractor to go in and put in a pipe. Contract said that the general contractor would control the water on the property but he could not control the water released from the pipe. Time and materials was going to be off-the-chart expensive to properly do the work. "we have to modify our deal. We're gonna lose crazy amounts of money because of the flooding. When w're finished, it has to be our time and materials." General contractors want to use the old deal and pay the lesser amount. Court acknowledges that because it was reasonably unforeseeable that there would be flooding, there is an exception to the consideration rule.

Home improvement contractors must have a license in order to practice their profession. A general contractor who was licensed hired a brick and masonry guy. The subcontractor didn't have a license, but the general contractor used him anyway. After years of working together, he had not made all his payments to the subcontractor. When he got to the end of the journey, the General contractor said he didn't have a contract. The court said that's there to protect the public, but since the deal was made between professional contracts, it didn't matter. We're worried about the "client, not the lawyer." They allowed the subcontractor to recover his money even though there was not a regulatory license. This was only done because the contractor wasn't within the group of people covered by the license.

Tammy at a health club signed a contract saying that she would not sue if anything happened to her. Any harm done by employees, including negligence. Trainer works with her and she says that she has a headache and neck and shoulder problems and he tells her to keep going. She files a suit because she is really hurt. That employee's conduct is negligence. The employee should've known what was going on. The health club said that she signed a contract saying that negligence should not be sued for. Tammy says, but it says "any damage at all including negligence." If they had intentionally hurt her, it wouldn't have counted and that is not enforceable. With negligence, the courts will look at it carefully. She was not entitled to an award because she had excused them from any negligence.