Question
PART A: In an action for breach of contract, Paul, the Plaintiff, alleges that he transferred three pieces of property to Defendants, Douglas and Donald
PART A:In an action for breach of contract, Paul, the Plaintiff, alleges that he transferred three pieces of property to Defendants, Douglas and Donald (Plaintiff's brother and brother-in-law) in exchange for monthly payments of $3000 over a twenty (20) year period. No writing was entered into to memorialize this alleged contract, but Plaintiff alleges that there was an oral agreement between the parties. Plaintiff commenced this action when Defendants ceased making payments in accordance with the alleged oral agreement.Defendants move to dismiss the breach of contract action because there was no oral agreement, there was nothing in writing, the properties were a gift and any payments that were made to Plaintiff were made for his well-being and were not related to the transfer of the parties.
- Does this alleged oral contract fall within or outside the statute of frauds?
- Explain the types of contracts typically covered under this particular statute.
- Explain whether the statute applies in this issue and as such, who will prevail in court?
- Identify at least one case (IRAC) that supports your position.
PART B:Additionally, the Chet, gas station owner down the street is very pleased that Douglas and Donald own this land because they buy lots of gas and beer from his gas station.Chet just entered into a contract with Jeb, the contractor to expand his business with new bathrooms and a roof based on his expected profits from Douglas & Donald, but has not made any payments yet.Chet hears through the grape vine that Paul may take the land back. If so, Chet plans to sue Paul for his lost profits of gasoline and beer.Chet just realized that he was pretty drunk the other night when he signed the contract with Jeb.
- Does Chet have standing to sue Paul?Explain why or why not? Consider what kind of beneficiary Chet might be.
- Regardless of whether Chet can sue Paul, is there any way Chet might be able to get out of the contract with Jeb? If so, under what theory of contract law? Cite a case to support your position.
- Regardless of whether Chet can get out of the contract, assume that Chet decides to proceed with Jeb to complete the construction on his gas station.Unbeknownst to Chet, Jeb hires Franklin, a subcontractor and delegates Franklin to rebuild the bathrooms.Franklin does shoddy work and causes the toilets to explode and flood the gas station.Chet's insurance company reimburses Chet but seeks to have sue Jeb and/or Franklin.Under what legal contract theory can the insurance company sue Jeb and/or Franklin?Cite a case to support your position.
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started