or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Law
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| law |
hotpotato |
10/31/05 |
hi expert!
im a student learning introduction to law. I was wondering if you can help me with explaning some questions on breach and discharge to help me understand each mini case.
Thanks a lot
1. Anastasia entered into a contract with Rufus to purchase a stereo. Under the terms of that agreement, she was required to pay the total price of $775 in cash on July 15, and he was required to deliver the stereo after receiving paymeht. Although she failed to pay on time, Anastasia went to Rufus's house on July 18 and handed him eight $100 bills. Rufus refused the payment and insisted that he was discharging the contract on the basis of Anastasia's breach. Was Rufus justified in doing so? If Anastasia had tendered the same payment on July 15, would Rufus have been required to accept it?
4. Dennis and Carmen entered into a contract under which he agreed that, in one week's time, he would pay $10 000 in exchange for her motocycle. Three days later, however, he contacted her and said, "Look, as it turns out, my financial situation isn't as strong as i thought it was. I wonder if you'd be willing to just call off our agreement?" She replied, "Fine. You keep the money and I'll keep the motorcycle." After considering the matter further, however, Carmen called him back and said that she wanted the contract to be performed as initially planned. Dennis refuses to comply. IN fact, he insists that the contract no longer exists. Is he correct? If the parties' contract did come to an end, what is the process that was used to achieve that result.
7. Ten days ago, Stanislav purchased a car from his coworker Kerri for $10 000. The full purchase price was supposed to be paid on delivery. However, Stanislav paid only $2000 when Kerri delivered the car to him, and he has not paid anything since. For many years, Kerri did not mention the matter because she did not want to create an unpleasant situation in her workplace. Recently, however, when she retired from her job, she notified Stanislav that she want4ed to be paid the remaining part of the purchase price plus interest. He replied, "I know that i still owe at least $8000 to you, but i also know that there is some law that prevents you from claiming it anymore." Is he correct? Is Kerri now entitled to receive any money?
4. Aimee, a music producer, purchased a vehicle from Eddie's Fine Cars Inc. To save money, Eddie drafts the sales contracts himself rather than relying on the expertise of a lawyer. Because Aimee is very particular about her music, she insisted that her contract with Eddie include the following term: "It is a condition of this contract that all the extras in the vehicle shall be in good working order. More specifically, Eddie's Fine Cars Inc warrants that the air conditioning and the stereo are as good as new." After taking possession of the car, however, Aimee discovered that the CD playter operates at an improper speed, with the effect that songs are heard 3/4 time. She also realized that she overpaid for the vehicle. Consequently, she wants to return it to Eddie for a full refund. Is she entitled to do so? Would your answer be different if the sales contract had been drafted in precisely the same terms by a team of lawyers? |
Clarification/Follow-up by hotpotato on 10/31/05 3:26 pm:
thank you so much..and by the way..it's not homework at all =) it's just for my own understanding.. thanks for ur answers!
Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 10/31/05 7:25 pm:
My answer to the first one is incorrect.
If Anastasia shows up with the money on or before the 15th of July, the deal must go through.
She showed up late, so Rufus does not have to sell the stereo to her as she defaulted on the contract. He can sell it to someone else for more money or simply keep it.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
