Law Application, Reaction Paper Example

1. What tort if any did Thedore commit on Mr. Justason?

Even though it was an accident that Mr. Justason was hit by the rock that Theodore threw while they were playing outside the house of the Justasons, it was the act of negligence that holds the young boy responsible for his act. The tort of negligence simply implies that if he [knowingly or unknowingly] caused harm to an individual is liable for being responsible for the said harm incurred.

2. Can the boys enforce a contact against Tom’s Sport’s Emporium?

Yes, the fact that there was a posted 50% off advertisement in the telephone booth around the corner directed to the shop means that the sales offer is still open. Has it not been available already, it is the shop owners’ responsibility to remove the said community announcement  as it could be misleading to interested buyers like Theodore and his brother. Notably, if the shopper does not remove the “offer” which is one of the most common aspects of contract in sales, then he could be accounted for fraudulent advertisement if the offer has been considered non-existent at the time of which the clients see the said posted ad.

3. Is there a contract between Mrs. Justason and the boy’s parents? If so, what consideration could it be said that Mrs. Justason has given up?

Yes. Mrs. Justason mentioned to the boys’ parents that she would retract or retrieve the case of vandalism against the children if the parents agreed to change the window that has been broken. Although it was not indicated that the parents did say “yes” to the offer, their act of looking for a window in a glass shop indicates that they have accepted the agreement offered. Relatively though, it was not mentioned in the case that the window was actually replenished to the Justasons especially that the glass window was not purchased by the boy’s parents after a failed agreement with the store owner. In a way, it was clear that no repair nor exchange of broken window was undergone. From this point though, the case indications continue to present that Mrs. Justason dealt with the boys willingly and even asked them to buy loaf for her in exchange of a valued amount for the supposed “service” that they are to offer her.

In this part of the case, it was as if Mrs. Justason tries to get even as the contract that she and the boy’s parents was not followed through [therefore is considered as breached] , she then created a new agreement with the boys which she did not fulfill later on.

4. Can the parents substantiate a breach of contract against the first glass company? If so, how is the offer irrevocable?

The irrevocability of the contract formed between the parents and the first glass company lays on the fact that the offer made by the shop owner was accepted by the parents and a condition of keeping the glass for another week for the parents’ purchase was a sealed deal. The three components have been present within this agreement which includes the offer, the acceptance and the condition which makes the whole ‘verbal contract’ to be valid and unchangeable holding the shop owner responsible for supposedly keeping his side of the agreement.

5. Assume that for the purposes of this question only, if the parents obtained the first window from the first glass company, under what theory could the parents rescind the agreement if the glass was found to not in fact be indestructible?

A promise from a sales person is considered as a warranty. Warranty in itself is a form of agreement or a contract between the seller and the buyer upon the exchange of values [namely the product for the valued price that it was purchased under]. According to the scope of the second article of the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC , a seller is considered responsible for any particular warranty released at the point of the completion of a transaction. It is then expected that the features amounting to the value paid for the purchase of a product be valid enough hence holding the seller responsible for any future failure on the part of the warranty’s capacity to return the value of the money used by the buyers for the possessing the product.

6. If the parents decide not to take the boys on vacation, under what premise could the boys rely on in bringing an action against their parents in the event that the boys opted not to take on a painting job at Mrs. Justason’s house the week in question?

The agreement that has been formed between the parents and the children is considered a valid contract. The offer by the parents was made, it was accepted by the children and the condition of the date of fulfilling the “clauses of the agreement’ was directed towards the week of August 13^th. Every single detail of a valid contract has been completed thus holding both parties responsible for upholding their side of responsibility in relation to the formed agreement. Nevertheless, in the case, there was no mention of the paining job that the boys were supposed to respond to in relation to Mr. Justason’s supposed request. In this case, the children could consider that the inaction of their parents to take them to the vacation during the target week is a breach of he agreement that they have formed.

7. Under what theory can Mrs. Justason rely upon in avoiding having to pay the boys $5.00 for the bread?

The statute of frauds under article 2 of the UCC specifically indicates that verbal agreements are valid contracts so long as it is based upon the three primary components namely the offer, the acceptance and the condition. Nevertheless, the idea of making an evened condition between her, the children and the parents as well when it comes to the unfulfilled agreement of changing the broken window, Mrs. Justason seems to assume that not fulfilling her agreement with the boys to pay $5 bills for the bread would clarify the clauses of the agreement formerly formed. Nevertheless, under the UCC conditions. Contracts are considered to be separate from one another hence should be responded to separately as well. In a way, the breach of contract that the parents committed could not be resolved by another breaching action on the part of Mrs. Justason towards the boys as this is considered to be another separate case.

8. How is it that the boys could avoid the doctrine of unilateral mistake as a means of preventing their otherwise inability to rescind the contract?

The doctrine of unilateral mistake indicates that one party involved in a contract has mistakenly understood the clauses of the agreement. In line with the case of the boys and Mrs. Justason’s offer of giving them $5 bill for the service they provide of running to the bakery for loaf bread, it could be analyzed that the boys could impose that the refusal of Mrs. Justason to give them their end of the agreement was clearly stated. The clarity of the exchange of values holds Mrs. Justason responsible to fulfill what she has mentioned she would do. Should the boys decide to rescind the contract, only then shall the fulfillment of the responsibility of Mrs. Justason be considered unnecessary or excusable.

9. True or False A contract is an objective manifestation of a willingness to enter into a bargain.  It Must be definite and it must be communicated. TRUE
10. True or False Irrespective of the U.C.C. or common law, offers are always revocable. TRUE
11. True or False Under the common law, Counter-offers constitute as acceptance to the contract with all terms except for the term that the parties do not agree upon.  FALSE
12. True or False A condition subsequent must occur prior to triggering one’s performance obligation. FALSE
13. Andy has alleged that Mike and Andy orally agreed for the sale of Blackacre for the amount of $150,000.00. At closing, Mike refuses to pass title of the land to Andy and states that we may have orally agreed to this contract for the sale of land, the agreement was never reduced to writing.  Therefore, Mike indicated that Andy could not require him to specifically. Who is right?

Under the second article of the UCC, a verbal contract is valid. So long as an agreement is communicated and the parties agree to its clauses, the conditions of the agreement is considered valid. Nevertheless, it is always better to put everything into writing. The revocability of the contract could change over time especially when the agreement has not been written down in clear documentation. Nevertheless, Andy, in this case, has the right to demand Mike to perform his end of agreement especially that Andy has already completed his side of the contract which is the payment of the amount of $150,000.00. The exchange of value ought to be completed fully so as to impose a respective protection to the right of both the seller and the buyer.