Reference no: EM13861010

According to the attachment (your response) and questions below, what is the name of the contracts (if any)  and what are the legal issues in both cases? Thank you!

1. On April 1, 2015, Lenore Sokol saw a burglar running from the house owned by her neighbor, Bob. Sokol tackled the man and held him until the police arrived. Bob was delighted by Sokol's actions and said "I can't thank you enough! I'm so happy that I am going to give you $500 for doing that. Also, if you stop another burglar from robbing my house within the next two years, I'll give you $1,000 more." Sokol responded, "That's a deal."

On April 7, 2015, Sokol bought $500 worth of opera records from Rudy's Antique Boutique, as she expected to get that much from Bob. On July 3, 2015, Sokol saw a strange woman running from Bob's house through a broken window. She was obviously a burglar. Again Sokol heroically stopped the burglar and had her arrested by the police. Again, Bob thanked her.

However, as of October 12, 2015, Bob has not paid Sokol the $500 or $1000. Discuss in detail by finding all legal issues Bob's rights to:

a. the rights to $500

b. the rights to $1000

2. Mishkie decided to sell her house at 3200 Market Street, and advertised it for $300,000. On June 1, 2015, Gak looked over the house and noticed roof shingles that were loose. That same day, Gak said to Mishkie, "I'll give you $300,000 for the house, but I'm concerned it needs a new roof." Mishkie replied, "I'll take the $300,000 and you can deduct the cost of a new roof from the price. Just get me two estimates from a roofer by June 5, 2012 and I will deduct the lower estimate from the price of the house." Gak replied "That's a deal." Mishkie drafted a document that specified the house's location and description, a move in date of August 1, 2015 and a mortgage rate. The selling price was left blank until Gak received the two quoted from roofers. Both Mishkie and Gak signed and dated the document, June 1, 2015. On June 3, 2015, Gak met with Mishkie and gave her the two quotes, the lower being $5000. When Gak asked Mishkie to fill in a selling price of $295,000 and sign the changes, she refused. Mishkie told Gak that she decided not to sell Gak the house. Gak seeks your legal advice to enforce the contents of this document. Provide him with an honest evaluation of his rights by finding and discussing all legal issues.

3. Newman wanted to rent an apartment and discussed the terms of a lease with owner Art Vandalay. Vandalay gave Newman a document that included a three-year term, a description of the apartment, the rental fee of $1000 per month, and both parties other obligations including a clause prohibiting pets of any kind in the apartment. Both Newman and Vandalay signed and dated the document on March 1, 2015. There was no pressure of any kind for the tenant, Newman, to sign. Newan did not realize that the document prohibited pets. On March 2, 2015, Newman called Vandalay to discuss the matter, telling Vandalay he had a small, quiet pet cat. Vandalay responded on the phone by telling Newman that Newman moved in with his pet cat, Vadalay produced a court order to evict both Newman and his cat, explaining that Newman and Vandalay had a signed document that prohibited pets. Discuss fully by finding all legal issues Newman's rights to enforce Vandalay's promise to allow him to have a pet in the apartment.

Question 1

It can correctly be ascertained that according to the agreement, Sokol had each and every right to demand a total payment of $1500 from Bob because of his endeavours to subsequently prevent the two burglars from robbing Bob's House. Owing to the fact that Bob had confessed to Sokol that he will give him $500 for tackling the man who had the intention of robbing Bob's House and promised to give him a further $1000 more if he stopped another burglar from robbing his house within the next two years, Bob has no choice other than to honour the verbal agreement. The verbal agreement entered between Bob and Sokol has to be honoured since all the terms in the verbal agreement had been fully satisfied. Bob is therefore by law required to rightfully pay both the $500 and $1000 as agreed in the first and second deal with Sokol (Furmston & Tolhurst, 2010).

Question 2

According to the deal between Mishike (seller) and Gak (buyer), the house was initially to cost $300,000 but owing to the fact that the roof shingles were loose, the selling price had to be $295,000 so that $5000 could cater for the deductions for the costs of getting the new roof. However, the agreement was that Gak should get Mishike the estimates of the new roof by June 5, 2012. However, due to the fact that the Move in date in the new house was August 1, 2015, the deal was surpassed by the time period and therefore Gak had no right whatsoever to demand that Mishike sells him the house at $295,000 since the agreed time period had already elapsed. This is also owing to the fact that the selling price had been left balnk indicated that Mishike was under no obligation to sell the house to Gak at $295,000. It was unfortunate that no binding agreement had been reached regarding the price of the house but however, Gak can sue Mishike for a breach of contract. 

Question 3

Based on the agreement between Newman (tenant) and Art Vandalay (house Owner), it was clearly apparent that there was a clause which prohibited any kind of pets within the apartment. It can therefore be clearly asserted that Newman breached the contract by opting to rear a small and quiet pet cat within the apartments yet he knew well the clause prohibited it. According to Law, Vandalay had every right to evict Newman from the apartments because they had signed documents which included a clause that prohibited pets of any kind in the apartments (Klass, 2010).

References

Furmston, M. & Tolhurst, G. (2010). Contract Formation: Law and Practice. London: OUP Oxford.

Klass, G. (2010). Contract Law in the USA. New York: Kluwer Law International.