In the case of Bart, he has the right to file claims against his employer Bill, Barney and Ruby for damages. In the case of Bill, he is liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel known as “detrimental reliance” where an individual who has reasonably and substantially relied on the promise of another can acquire some measure of recovery (Miller, 2013, p. 173). The doctrine of promissory estoppel permits a party to recover a promise even if the same was made without any consideration in order to promote the interest of equity and justice by enforcing the contractual obligations. The purpose of the enforcement by the court of the contractual obligation of the promisor is to avoid unfairness even there is no contract actually exists.
In the case of Barney, the contract of sale that was entered between him and Albart can be annulled since Albart is only a minor. Hence, once the contract is voided, it is the same as having no agreement at all since it does not bind any of the parties to it. The minor cannot be considered as a competent party to enter to a contract (Irlander, 2008, p.174). While in the case of Ruby, Bill can file a claim for damages when Ruby failed to disclose the existing condition of the house located in Indianapolis and the neighborhood surrounding it. This is in violation of Indiana Residential Estate Disclosure Law (Davis, 2013).
In the case of Bart v. Bill, the issue to be resolved is whether Bart can file a case for damages against Bill when Bill did not pay for his house rentals and terminated him despite his promise that Bart will be employed for the rest of his life. Hence, Bart can file a claim against Bill under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Based from the facts of the case, Bill, who was a computer engineer based in Florida was asked by Bart to relocate in Indianapolis and was offered to become the Supervisor of the company. In addition, Bill told Bart that if he will move in the Indianapolis office, he will be employed for the rest of his life. However, 6 weeks after his employment with Bill, Bart was informed Bill is incapacitated to pay his services due to economy crisis. As a result, Bill was no able to pay the rent for house due to the financial reverses. After being employed for 5 weeks with Bill, Bart was terminated due to the economic crises. Bill even promised that he will pay for Bart’s rental fees because he did a great job for the past years he worked with him. However, one month after, Bill decided to stop making payment and changed his mind. The state law that will be applied will be in Indiana because it is the place where Bart was last employed and the location of the office owned by Bill.
In this given scenario, Bart has the right to file a claim against Bill on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has been called the “detrimental reliance”, which allows any person who has reasonably and substantially relied on the promise of another to acquire some measure of recovery (Miller, 2013, p. 173). In business transactions, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been relied on under various contexts by the court which granted the promisee the right to recovery based on a promise despite lack consideration on the part of the promissor. The courts were able to enforce an unenforceable promise in order to avoid miscarriage of justice and to recompense those who suffered losses and damages. The doctrine of promissory estoppel shall exist if the following requisites concur: First, there must be a clear promise that is certain; second, the promisor expected the promisee will depend on such promise; third, the promise has reasonable relied on the promise by acting or refraining to do an act; fourth, the promisee suffered from a substantial detriment resulting from a definite reliance; and fifth, the enforcement was done to avoid injustice to the promise (Miller, 2013, p. 173). In the case of Bill, he would not have relocated to Indianapolis if not for the offer of Bart to employ his as the company supervisor and the promise of perpetual employment as long as he lives. Here, it is evident that Bill relied on the promises made by Bart believing that Bart will fulfill them since they have been working together for many years. This was the principle was well-settled in the case of Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice, where the court ruled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel exists in order to allow the aggrieved party to recover for the damages suffered due to injustice made by the promisor. Here, the plaintiff Rice was offered the position of executive director for the Alaska Democratic Party by the party chairman Greg Wakefield. Despite Rice’s current employment, she resigned from her position as a member of the vice-presidential campaign for Gore, and relocated to Alaska. Rice was later on informed that she was unfit for the job. Rice filed an action against the Alaska Democratic Party under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court ruled in favor of Rice, which granted her the right to recover on the basis of promissory estoppel doctrine. The rationale behind this ruling is that a promise is enforceable on the basis of the doctrine to avoid injustice by enforcing the promise made by the promisor. This was the same ruling in the case of McIntosh v. Murphy, where the court held that when the plaintiff entered oral agreement with defendant to be employed in the latter’s auto dealership in Hawaii for one year, and was later on terminated after two months, the court held that the plaintiff can recover for damages against defendant. Here, the plaintiff has relied on an oral promise that he will be employed for one year. Hence, defendant should comply with the promise and shall be estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds on the basis of the promissory estoppel doctrine. Therefore, there was valid consideration that will entitle the plaintiff to file a case against the defendant to enforce the oral contract.
In the case of Bart vs. Barney, the issue to be resolved is whether Bart can recover the additional $50,000 of the contract price from Barney instead of the $175,000 agreed price by Barney and Albart involving the sale of the house in Vero Beach Florida. Here, Bart cannot be bound by the contract of sale involving his house since one of the parties to the contract is his minor son Albart. It is a well-settled rule that minors cannot be considered as competent parties to enter in a contract of sale involving real properties. In the event that Barney refuses to pay off the loan amounting to $225,000 or an additional $50,000 of the contract price, Bart can use minority as a defense to render the contract voidable. The state law that will be applied is Florida law since this is the venue where the property is located and the place of execution of the contract between Albart and Barney.
In this case, Albart is 17 years old and a minor. As a minor, he cannot enter a contract for the sale of a real property because he cannot be considered as a competent party. Hence, it will render the contract between Barney and Albart as voidable. Under the state of Florida, the minor cannot be considered as a competent party and only the minor may void the contract (Irlander, 2008, p.174). In this case, Albart can void or disaffirm the contract within a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority, which is 18 years. This was the ruling decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Spencer v. Lyman Falls Power Co., where the minor may disaffirm the contract at any time after reaching the age of majority (Aalberts, p. 245).
Under the laws in Florida, only the former minor has the right to disaffirm the contract and not the person with whom the minor has contracted. Hence, neither Barney nor Bart can annul the contract of sale involving the property in Vero, Florida. Since Albart sold the house for only $175,000, which was not the instruction of his father, and the fact that he was a minor, Bart can recover his house by using minority of Albart as a defense. Therefore, the contract entered by Albart and Barney will be rendered voidable and Bart can disaffirm the contract after he reaches the age of majority or one year thereafter since Albart is only 17 years old.
In the case of Bart v. Ruby, the issue to be resolved is whether Bart can file a claim for damages against Ruby when she did not disclose the actual condition of the house and lot prior to the completion of the sale. Bart can file a case against Ruby for failing to disclose the existing condition of the house located in Indianapolis and the neighborhood surrounding it. Prior to the sale, one of the considerations why Bart bought the house from Ruby amounting to $300,000 was due to the size of the lot which was one acre. Two weeks prior to the completion of the sale, one party has mistakenly built a Seven Eleven convenience store on the land where the house was located. Bart was shocked to see that there was a Seven Eleven store that operated beside house where there were drunkards standing in the parking lot. It is apparent that Bart is entitled to sue Ruby for non-disclosure or failure to notify the buyer of the present problems with the house and property which has violated the provisions of the Indiana Residential Estate Disclosure Law (Davis, 2013). Here, Bart can file a case for damages against Ruby before the courts of Indiana since it is the place where the house was located. Since Ruby acted as the seller of the house, she has the responsibility under the Indiana Residential Estate Disclosure Law to inform Bart that there was a Seven Eleven convenience store that was about to be constructed near the house offered for sale. In this manner, Bart should have been given the present condition of the house and lot and given an ample time to decide whether or not to buy the property.
In the alternative, Bart can also sue Seven Eleven when they built their store in the vacant lot by mistake and ask for damages for the sleepless nights he may have suffered due to the nuisance pose by the Seven Eleven store and its customers. Under the local ordinance of Indianapolis, Indiana under Article III Section 391-302 under public policy, hereby declared, as a matter of public policy of this city that the “making of sound of a volume, frequency, pattern, or duration that prohibits, disrupts, injures, or endangers the health, safety, welfare, prosperity, comfort, or repose of persons of ordinary sensitivities within the city is prohibited since it constitute as public nuisance” (Indiana Noise Ordinance). Hence, any person who shall be responsible for or associated with the creation of any unreasonable noise shall be held liable under the ordinance.
Analysis of Current Implications of Case
At present, the ruling that was rendered in the case of Bart vs. Bill will serve as a warning to employers not to terminate employees after an oral contract has been made which allows the employee to recover damages based on the promise. This is made possible even if the same was made without any consideration in order to promote the interest of equity and justice by enforcing the contractual obligations. In the case of contracts entered with minors as illustrated in the case of Albart and Barney, it is a settled rule that minors cannot be considered as competent parties to enter a valid contract. Hence, this ruling is explicitly provided under the law on obligations and contracts and will continue to exist. Finally, in the case of Ruby as a seller, she has the obligation to disclose the present or current situation of the properties being sold to buyers in order to avoid claims for damages.
Analysis of Future Implications of Case
For cases that will be decided in the future, the doctrine of promissory estoppel will still govern in cases involving “detrimental reliance” on the part of an individual who has reasonably and substantially relied on the promise of another can acquire some measure of recovery (Miller, 2013, p. 173). The doctrine of promissory estoppel permits a party to recover a promise even if the same was made without any consideration in order to promote the interest of equity and justice by enforcing the contractual obligations. This doctrine is expected to be strictly enforced in future cases.
In cases involving contract entered with minors, well-settled is the rule in the case of Spencer v. Lyman Falls Power Co. that a minor may disaffirm the contract at any time after reaching the age of majority (Aalberts, p. 245). Under the state of Florida, the minor cannot be considered as a competent party and only the minor may void the contract (Irlander, 2008, p.174). Hence, this ruling has been doctrinally entrenched under the present real estate laws and jurisprudence and is perceived to be the same decision that will be followed in future cases.
Bart can file a case against Ruby for failing to disclose the existing condition of the house located in Indianapolis and the neighborhood surrounding it pursuant to Indiana Residential Estate Disclosure Law. This ruling is expected to be applied in future cases in order to protect the interest of buyers. In addition, the local ordinance of Indianapolis, Indiana based on Article III Section 391-302 on public policy, that as a matter of public policy the “making of sound of a volume, frequency, pattern, or duration that prohibits, disrupts, injures, or endangers the health, safety, welfare, prosperity, comfort, or repose of persons of ordinary sensitivities within the city is prohibited since it constitute as public nuisance” (Indiana Noise Ordinance). Hence, this ruling will serve as a warning to those persons who shall be responsible for or associated with the creation of any unreasonable noise to protect the interest of the general public.
Personal Opinion of Case
In my personal opinion of the cases involving Bart vs. Bill, Bart vs. Barney and Bart vs. Ruby, Bart has a cause of action against Bart, Barney and Ruby for the damages he suffered from the three scenarios.
In the case against Bill, he can be sued pursuant to the doctrine of equitable estoppel wherein injustice is likely to occur since Bart has relied on Bill’s promise to his detriment. The basis of the claim is not a contract, but rather on the harm that occurred after reasonably relying on another’s promise that there will be a contractual relationship (Walsh, 2012, p.224). The elements of promissory estoppel are: 1.) One party makes and ambiguous promise to another; 2.) The party who received the promise acted on reliance to such promise; 3.) The reliance on the promise is expected of the person who made the promise; and 4.) The party who relied on the promise is harmed (Walsh, 2012, p. 224).
In the case of Albart, he is not competent to enter a valid contract since he is still a minor. Hence, the contract will be rendered voidable or valid until annulled. Albart can disaffirm the contract after reaching the age of majority as cited in the case of Spencer v. Lyman Falls Power Co. In the case of Ruby, as a seller, she is mandated by law to disclose the present situation of the property that was being sold. Hence, it is her duty to inform Bart that there was a 7-11 store that was about to be constructed in the lot near his house. Her failure to disclose such fact makes her liable for damages pursuant to the Indiana Residential Estate Disclosure Law (Davis, 2013). Bart can file a case against 7-11 store near his house for violation of the local ordinance law or Indiana Noise Ordinance when it tolerated their intoxicated customers to make noises in the area. In addition, he can also request the court to remove the store since they constructed the store on the wrong lot.
Summary/Conclusion of Case:
At present, the ruling that was rendered in the case of Bart vs. Bill will serve as a warning to employers not to terminate employees after an oral contract has been made. What the law seeks to avoid is the damage that may be caused on the party who has relied on such promise. Here, Bart has reasonably relied on the promise of Bill. The basis of the claim allowed by the court is not based on an agreement, but the damage or harm that was caused on Bart after he relied on such promise. Hence, the courts has recognized the right of the employees and allowed them to recover damages based on the promise. This is pursuant to the duty of the court to promote the interest of equity and justice through the enforcement of contractual obligations. In the case of contracts entered with minors as illustrated in the case of Albart and Barney, it is a settled rule that minors cannot be considered as competent parties to enter a valid contract. Finally, in the case of Ruby as a seller, she has the obligation to disclose the present or current situation of the properties being sold to buyers in order to avoid claims for damages.
References
Aalberts, R. J. (2011). Real Estate Law, 8th ed. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage.
Alaska Democratic Party v. Rice, 934 P.2d 1313 (Alaska 1997).
Davis, K.C. (2013). Indiana Home Sellers: Disclosures Required Under State Law. NOLO.com
Web. May 4, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/indiana-home-sellers-disclosures-required-under-state-law.html.
Irlander, S. (2008). Florida Real Estate: Principles, Practices, and License Law. Mason, OH:
South Western Cengage.
Ordinance No. 225. Supplement No. 75. City of Indianopolis, Indiana (1995). Web. May 4,
2013, Retrieved from
http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/cities/indianap.htm.
McIntosh v. Murphy, 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177 (Haw. 1970).
Miller, R.M. (2013). Fundamentals of business law: excerpted cases. Mason, OH: South
Western Cengage.
Spencer v. Lyman Falls Power Co. 109 Vt. 294, 196 A. 276 (1938)
Walsh, D. J. (2012). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 4th ed. Mason, OH:
Thomson.
