I really need help with formatting of my work. I will show you my work and I would ask if you can kindly help me organize it. Here is my paper.

Legal Analysis

Identifying the legal issues created by the facts is the first step I must do in order to complete the case's legal analysis. Legally speaking, the main issue, in this case, is whether or not Bella Swan and Edward Cullen made a contract that was binding and still enforceable. The statute of limitations may also be relevant, and if it is, whether or not the clock should be stopped is another matter to consider.

The next step is to explain how each element of the rule of law can be used to interpret the facts. I need to find out first and foremost if Bella and Edward had a two-way exchange of agreement (offer and acceptance). According to the rule of law, "mutual assent" refers to a "meeting of the minds" where two parties agree to be bound by the terms of an agreement. "Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or circumstance an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances" (Washington State Legislature, 2023) There must be a "meeting of the minds" for there to be agreement. It would seem that both parties were on the same page in this situation. Bella sent Edward an email on January 28, 2016, with a proposal to buy his house for $1,350,000. Edward replied to the email on January 29th by saying that while the terms were acceptable, the price was not. Bella wrote Edward another email on January 30 in which she restated her initial offer to purchase the house from him for $1,400,000 but left the other conditions same. Bella received an email from Edward on February 1st declining this offer. However, he did make it clear that he would accept $1,500,000 in cash in exchange for her promise to wed him and full payment of the house. Bella declined Edward's marriage proposal on February 2nd, but she did agree to pay $1,500,000 for the property with the condition that Edward would sell it to her fully furnished. Last but not least, on February 5th, Edward wrote Bella a new email in which he mentioned that he had received an all-cash offer of $1,700,000. Edward said, If you are willing to pay cash in the sum of $1,900,000, I will sell you the house in its present state. In addition, I will throw in one signed picture by Bob Kane. This final offer has all of the additional conditions that were specified in the email sent on February 2 and are all acceptable. Bella accepted this offer, and the parties agreed to forgo any required inspections and set the closing date and time on March 15, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. With the use of this offer and acceptance, it would seem that the conditions for mutual assent have been satisfied, and as a result, it would seem that Bella and Edward have successfully created a legally binding contract.

The next component of the rule of law is taking into account the means to support each promise. As consideration for the agreement, each party will provide the other with something of value. It is obvious that a transaction involving some kind of consideration would have taken place in this case with the negotiations set forth. However, Bella and Edward came to an understanding that Bella would pay Edward $1,900,000 cash for the house. A legally enforceable contract has been made as a result of the transfer of value, which satisfies the need of consideration.

The third element of the rule of law is the capacity for binding agreements. A person must be able to legally bind themself in order to be able to enter into a contract. As a result, the person must be of legal age (at least 18 years old) and mentally capable of understanding and accepting the terms of the agreement. In this case, Bella and Edward were both of legal age to enter into the contract and had the mental capacity to understand and accept its terms. Therefore, a formal agreement was established between them because both parties had the required legal competence to do so.

The fourth element of the rule of law is the goals and purposes of the law. A contract must have a legitimate goal and intention in order to be upheld by the law. This means that the contract cannot violate any specific laws or be inconsistent with any government guidelines. The contract in this case appears to have a legal function given that it is an agreement between two parties about the sale and purchase of property. It would seem that the contract has created a lawful contract because it appears to have satisfied the conditions of a legal objective and purpose.

Identifying whether or not the defendant's violation was the direct cause of the plaintiff's damages is the final element of the rule of law. In this case, it would seem that Edward's violation of the contract was what led to Bella's financial losses. Bella and Edward came to an understanding that they would each pay the other $1,900,000 for the house. On March 10, Bella had scheduled a delivery of $1,900,000 to Northwest Escrow at 9 am on March 15 from her personal account. Without consulting Bella about the decision, Edward had a change of mind and chose to sell his longtime friend Esme the house for $500,000 on March 14th. Bella was stopped from purchasing the property as a result of Edward's breach of the contract, which cost her $1,900,000 in damages. As a result of hearing this on her way to Northwest Escrow, she made an immediate appointment with her attorney Therefore, it would seem that a binding contract was made and that Edward's breach of it directly resulted in Bella's losses.

The possible outcomes of the case should then be discussed, and each of those outcomes should then be explained in terms of the relevant law standards. Bella will probably win the case if she can demonstrate that her legal action complies with the rules of law. She would be entitled to compensation for the value of the home, which is $1,900,000, plus an additional $2,750,000 to compensate for her medical costs and pain and suffering.

On the other hand, there is the issue of the statute of limitations, generally known as the timespan. "An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued." ( Washington State Legisture, 2023) In this case, Bella did not bring her legal action until January 10th, 2023, which is more than four years after the agreement was broken. As a result, it would seem that Bella's case may no longer be strong given that the deadline for filing a lawsuit has past. Bella's lawyer will probably make the point that the statute of limitations should be extended in order to continue the case due to Bella's health issues. In other words, he will argue that Bella was unable to file the complaint inside the four-year window due to a physical issue and that as a result, the statute of limitations should be tolled as a result. For Bella, this argument has some validity because it makes some good arguments. However, in the Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions Part XIII. Contracts Chapter 303. ContractsRemedies says that "Damages are not recoverable for loss that the party in breach did not have reason to foresee as a probable result of the breach when the contract was made." (Washington Civil Jury Instructions, 2022) In this case, Edward had no reason to believe that as a result of his breach of contract Bella would 1, have her car broken down. 2, get severely beaten by Jasper Hale. Or 3, suffer any health issues related to the beating. Therefore, the $2,750,000 for medical costs/pain and suffering that Bella seeks from Edward would prove to be obsolete in this case. And as for Bella's inability to prosecute Edward due to her mental and physical state, according to Washington state legislature, an incompetent or disabled person gone to such a degree that he or she cannot understand the nature of the proceedings, such incompetency or disability shall not be a part of the time limited for the commencement of action. (Washington State Legislature, 2023) Bella will be able to prosecute for the breach of contract since the time for the statute of limitations was paused due to her disabled state.

The last stage is to use what I've learned from the analysis to come to a conclusion about the case. A review of the case's specifics and the applicable statutes suggests that Bella and Edward did, in fact, enter into a legally binding contract. Bella's lawyer will likely contend that the statute of limitations should be extended or paused for a specific period of time due to Bella's medical issues. There is some truth to this line of thinking, and Bella might succeed in the end. The decision of the court regarding how to interpret the facts and the law will help decide how the issue is resolved. What Bella will receive as a result of the damages against her may differ depending on the actual price of the home now and what she purchased it for. As for any other commodities, the plaintiff is "not entitled to be placed in a better position than he would have been in if the contract had not been broken." (Reuters, 2022) Edward is not liable for anything that he could not have foreseen as a result of breaching the contract and is therefore not entitled to pay for Bellas's medical expenses. Anticipatory repudiation is according to the Washington State Legislature "When either party repudiates the contract with respect to a performance not yet due the loss of which will substantially impair the value of the contract to the other" (Washington State Legislature, 2023) Edward had acted on on this by selling the house to his friend before the closing date of the contract, and Bella finding this out a day of this occuring. Bella would have a valid claim against Edward had she concluded that he is, indeed, obligated to pay for the expenses which cost Bella $1,900,000 in 2016 because of his breaching of the binding contract between them. "The injured party has a right to damages based on his reliance interest, including expenditures made in preparation for performance" (Reuters, 2022) Bella, before being informed of Edwards's seemingly quick decision would be able to compensate for the money that he transferred.

I need it to be formatted in this way:

Bella must prove that a contract exists. Edward must prove that a contract does not exist. Accordingly, Bella must prove each of the five elements of a contract exist. Edward will argue that each of the five elements do not exist.

Mutual Assent (Offer & Acceptance):

Bella:

Edward:

Consideration to support each promise:

Bella:

Edward:

Capacity to contract:

Bella:

Edward:

Legal objective and purpose:

Bella:

Edward:

Defendant's breach proximately caused plaintiff's damages:

Bella:

Edward: