Question 1
Introduction
A contract is either forceable or unenforceable.For it to be enforceable and valid, it has to meet certain elements: offer, intention to create legal relations, acceptance, and consideration (Beale, 2002). Without any of these elements, the courts will not enforce the contract. However, several reasons ensure that a contract cannot be enforced: duress, misrepresentation, unfair terms and undue influence. In the facts given, each person has their merits, strengths and weaknesses. To analyze the position Steve is in and whether he stands to win any legal action brought against, each case will be analyzed separately, giving the merits of the case and potential defenses.
Don is the first of the potential buyers of the house. However, he will not succeed in bringing any legal action against Steve. Don makes an offer to purchase the house for $300000 upon Steve putting up a new roof. Don’s first mistake is that he failed to communicate by May 20th. Although a contract was in place, Don revoked it when it was apparent he would go to court. He then comes back with the remaining amount to claim the house. However, he goes against the stipulations of the law. The contract between Don and Steve is void and unenforceable because of the revocation he made when he was going to jail. This was what was held in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball co (Beale, 2002). As such, there is no contract between Don and Steve.
Naïve
The facts presented do not create any contractual obligation between Steve and Naïve. Naive lent Steve $6500, which Steve returned as agreed. No case.
Beau Tiful
Of all the parties involved in this saga, she has the strongest chance of winning the case. Typically, she makes an offer to Steve to buy the house, the consideration being $280,000. At this point, there was offer which is an important aspect of a contract. This principle is similar to what the court held in Harvey V Facey (Beale, 2002 & Fuller, n.d). Steve accepts the offer by signing the contract which was prepared by Tiful. According to the rule in Felthouse v Bindley, acceptance connotes that the two parties have agreed to the offer and were willing to be bound by the terms of the contract. The signing of the contract also means that the two parties had intentions to create legal relations through which they would be bound. As such, the contract between Steve and Tiful is valid and enforceable, giving Tiful an advantage according to the merits of the case. Tiful has a strong case against Steve, giving her an upper hand in any court of law.
As per the facts presented, Steve has limited defenses against the case by Tiful. However, all is not lost in defending Steve. One possible defense against Tiful is misrepresentation of facts. During the creation of the contract, Tiful’s conduct is questionable. For instance, she presents herself as a foreigner who never understood English. According to the rule in Bisset v Wilkinson, misrepresentation may render a contract null and void (Wishart, 2005). Although Tiful has a strong case and stands a better chance to win the case, this defense is available for Steve.
Renaldo the roofer
His role in the case was repairing the roof of the house in question. He did a great job when constructing the roof which Don described as being great. Renaldo performed his part very well and either Steve or Don cannot bring a legal action against him. The default in the roof which caused it to leak was caused by Steve when he tried to install a satellite dish. Steve was liable for this.
In any case, Don cannot bring an action against Renaldo because he is not the legal owner of the property. As already argued above, the contract between him and Steve is null and void. This means he does not have the locus standi to institute any action against Renaldo.
Mike the Motorist
Unknown to him that the house had already been sold to other parties, Mike agrees to purchase the house for $6500. He gives a down payment of $500 and commits himself to bring the rest by May 30th (or within a few weeks thereafter). Steve uses the down payment to purchase a new bike. He came with the remaining amount later, only to be prevented by Don from accessing the house. Although the consideration in this case is low, Mike has a strong case. Steve cannot argue against the amount agreed for the sale of the house.
In practice, there are three major conditions that a consideration should meet in order to be valid. First, it should not be past. Past consideration is not consideration. Second, it ought to o move from the promise, although it needs not to move to the promisor. Third, it ought to be sufficient, but not adequate (Wishart, 2005). In this case, the contract meets the third case. By a consideration being sufficient, the implication is that there must be some value. Courts do not get concerned about the adequacy, provided there is value. This rule was employed in the case of Chappell & Co v Nestle. Nestle offered a popular record in return of three pieces of a wrapper. It was held that although the value of the wrappers was minimal, the consideration was sufficient. This means that the fact that Mike’s consideration for the house was minimal does not play to the advantage of Steve in a court of law.
Question 2
Contracts create an obligation which all parties should fulfill. Breach of a contract entitles a party to several remedies. A breach happens when one party fails to act according o the contractual terms. When such is the case, one or both parties may demand that the contract is enforced, or demand some form of compensation.
Whether David can Sue Shady to get the four million dollars
The terms of the contract between David and Shady were very clear: Shady was to pay David an amount adding up to $4 million upon occupying the house. However, because of some difficulties, he is not able to settle this payment at once. He promises to settle the remaining amount by the month that followed.
It is apparent that Shady has breached the contact he has with David, hence David should sue him. A breach of contract gives the aggrieved party certain remedies. These may include damages, restitution/cancelation and specific performance (Fafinski, 2010). The type of remedy awarded depends on the nature of the contract and the extent to which it has not been performed. In this case, Shady’s main source of income was the inheritance he expected. Because of this nature, the remedy that would seem most effective is damages. Under this remedy, Shady should be required to give David some amount of money to cater for the period he was in the facility.
Whether David can sue Shady to make him buy the house
Specific performance is another remedy available for the aggrieved parties to a contract for breach (Elliott, 2002). This remedy is always sought by the non-breaching parties. Under this remedy, the aggrieved party prays the court to force the breaching party to ensure full-performance and meet the terms of the court. Specific performance is allowed mostly in cases where the subject matter of the case is unique and where damages as a remedy would not suffice. The breaching party must also be in a position to act on the remedy. In this matter, it would not be fair for David to sue Shady to buy the house. This is so because it is clear that Shady has no funds to buy the court. In addition to this, courts do not act in vain: a court will not give a remedy which will be in vain or difficult to fulfill. As such, David should not sue Shady to buy the house.
Whether he can sue Shady for the damages he caused
David can sue Shady for the damages he caused in his house. Such damage included the kids destroying David’s furniture and cutting down the palm trees. In practice, David can sue Shady, and there are several remedies available. For cutting down the trees, David can seek the remedy of damages since it would be impossible for Shady to restitute him to the position he was before. Specifically, the court might award David compensatory damages and nominal damages. In addition to this, punitive damages will be instigated to ensure Shady faces the law. The compensatory damages will seek to ensure that David’s loss is well-compensated (Elliott, 2002).
Getting the tractor out of the pond
Apparently, the Shadys were responsible for pushing the tractor into the pond, hence they should take responsibility for their actions. David can sue them in a court of law which will, in turn, ensure that Shady and his children act on it. By suing them, the court may make different judgments, depending on how the matter is presented in court. First, the court may offer David the remedy of damages, where Shady will be forced to compensate David in case the tractor was not in a good condition or could not get out of the pond. Alternatively, the court may require Shady to pull or hire people to pull the tractor out of the pond. Upon getting it out, he would be required to put it back to the condition it was before forcing it into the pond.
What to do about the cows
David spent $25000 to get his cows unpainted. There is need to incorporate this in his move to bring an action against Shady and his children. In essence, this amounted to trespass and tampering. David can sue Shady and pray for several remedies. First, the court may give David the remedy of damages. This means that Shady will be forced to give David some amount to cater for the price David paid to get his cows unpainted. Alternatively, the courts would ask Shady to unpaint the cows. These are some of the civil damages available for David.
References
Beale, H. (2002). Contract law. Oxford [England: Hart Pub.
Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2007). Contract law (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Fafinski, S., & Finch, E. (2010). Contract law (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Fuller, L., & Eisenberg, M. (n.d.). Basic contract law (Ninth ed.).
Wishart, M. (2005). Contract law. Oxford [UK: Oxford University Press.
