Reference no: EM131377948
When Mr. McClam died, he left the family farm, heavily mortgaged, to his wife and children. In order to save the farm from foreclosure, Mrs. McClam planned to use insurance proceeds and her savings to pay off the debts.
She was unwilling to do so, however, unless she had full ownership of the property. Mrs. McClam wrote her daughter, stating that the daughter should deed over her interest in the family farm to her mother. Mrs. McClam promised that upon her death all the children would inherit the farm from their mother equally.
The letter further explained that if foreclosure occurred, each child would receive very little, but if they complied with their mother's plan, each would eventually receive a valuable property interest upon her death.
Finally, the letter stated that all the other children had agreed to this plan. The daughter also agreed. Years later, Mrs. McClam tried to convey the farm to her son Donald. The daughter challenged, arguing that the mother was contractually bound to convey the land equally to all children.
Donald says this was an oral agreement to sell land, and is unenforceable. The daughter says the letter satisfies the statute of frauds, making the contract enforceable. Who gets the farm? Explain.
|
Explain is wilson correct
: Wilson argues that the statute of frauds governs this transaction and that because there was no writing, the contract claim is barred. Is Wilson correct? Explain.
|
|
What is the correct interpretation of this contract
: A reading of the entire contract, however, indicates that the plan was not intended to apply to someone who was fired for cause. What is the correct interpretation of this contract?
|
|
Summarize how shaw-mckay would account for the high crime
: Shaw and McKay developed their theory nearly 100 years ago. Do their arguments still apply today? What do the high crime neighborhoods look like now (versus early 1900s Chicago neighborhoods) and does this present any problems for their explanat..
|
|
Explain who is correct in given case
: Do not wish to sell property.'' Joiner now claims an oral modification of a contract within the statute of frauds is unenforceable. Katz counters that the modification is not material, and therefore does not affect the underlying contract. Explain..
|
|
Explain who gets the farm
: Donald says this was an oral agreement to sell land, and is unenforceable. The daughter says the letter satisfies the statute of frauds, making the contract enforceable. Who gets the farm? Explain.
|
|
Can ganley introduce into evidence oral representations
: The contract, however, provided: ‘‘The contractor [Ganley] has examined the said contracts ..., knows all the requirements, and is not relying upon any statement made by the company in respect thereto.'' Can Ganley introduce into evidence the oral..
|
|
Discuss the relationship between crime and capitalism
: Explain how and why state intervention, labeling, and societal reaction led to unanticipated consequences, according to the labeling theorists.Discuss the relationship between crime and capitalism, as advanced by the radical and new criminological..
|
|
Write decision in the given case
: Goldberg Company brought action to recover on the basis of $650 per bunch. The evidence showed that there was no applicable custom or usage in the trade and that each party held its belief in good faith. Decision?
|
|
Should ann succeed in given situation
: Used objected to the introduction of oral testimony concerning representations of its agent, contending that the written contract alone governed the rights of the parties. Should Ann succeed?
|