written response to problem 4

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

income and that he had informed Pulaski Mortgage of his current financial situation. On September 11, 2006, Carter submitted to Pulaski Mortgage additional documentation. On September 11, 2006, Pulaski Mort- gage sent a notice of adverse action to Carter advis- ing him that his "recent application for an extension or renewal of credit has been denied." The company informed him that "the decision to deny your applica- tion was based on the following reasons: .. . Excessive obligations . . . Insufficient income . . . Add[itional] current income information furnished by applicant." On September 11, 2006, Casey Jones informed Shan- non Treece, an independent contractor at Janet Jones Company and the Clines' agent, that Carter would not be able to close the real estate transaction on the Long- fellow property because he had lost his financing ap- proval from Pulaski Mortgage. She then informed the Clines that Carter would be unable to close on their property. The Clines sued Carter for breach of con- tract. Should they succeed?4. In 2006, M. Jay Carter hired Robert "Casey" Jones, a real estate agent at The Janet Jones Company, to rep- resent him in a real estate transaction with Ernie and Karen Cline. Carter intended to purchase residential property located at 8 Longfellow Place in Little Rock, Arkansas. The real estate contract was signed on June 11, 2006. It contained a provision setting the purchase price for the property at $1,037,500, "subject to Buyer's ability to obtain financing." The contract also included a handwritten provision under this same subsection that the buyer was required to "provide a letter of ap- proval within 10 business days." On June 21, 2006, Pu- laski Mortgage Company approved a loan for Carter to purchase the Longfellow property. The approval letter was conditioned upon, among other things, there being no material change in Carter's financial condition that might adversely affect his current level of creditworthi- ness, credit score, debt, or income. Pursuant to this conditional approval, Carter was required to submit to Pulaski Mortgage prior to closing an employment cer- tification providing evidence that his employment and income situation had not changed since his conditional approval. This approval letter from Pulaski Mortgage was submitted to Janet Jones Company within 10 business days as required by the contract, and closing was set for September 22, 2006. According to Carter and the documentation submitted to Pulaski Mort- gage, Carter's income began declining in July 2006. On September 8, 2006, Carter orally informed Pulaski Mortgage of his decline in income, and the company requested that Carter provide it with a year-to-date profit-and-loss statement and balance sheet. Carter also contacted Casey Jones on September 8, 2006, and told him that he had a decline in his third-quarter