Presley’s promise of paying Aden’s mortgage indebtedness was unenforceable. The promise made by Presley to paying the remaining mortgage was out of good will and was not considerable. Therefore, the appeal made by Mrs. Aden after his death could not enforce his estate legal representative to pay. Even though Presley was kind to the family of Alden and sent them several gifts including assisting them to put up a swimming pool and also paying for the landscaping lawn, it was not automatic that Presley would also keep his promise of paying the remaining mortgage for a divorce settlement. Presley got involved in the act voluntarily. Therefore, payment should be not to be forced from his estate after his death.
The court of appeal sided with the stand of the legal representative of Presley’s estate of refusing to pay the mortgage as claimed by Mrs. Alden. The court insisted that there was no gift in case there was a delivery failure. The court holds that a gift is only delivered if the donor completely surrenders that gift for a complete dominion by the donee. Therefore, the statement from the court of appeal stated that the claim of Mrs. Alden should be dismissed, and Promise of Presley rendered unenforceable.
Consideration
There is no consideration supporting Tallas’ promise to Dementas. The promise that Tallas made to Dementas was due to the past assistance he got from Dementas. Therefore, Tallas wrote a memorandum that indicated that he would pay Dementas $50, 000 for his help and he would also change his will to make him the heir, but Tallas died in 1983 before changing the will. Dementas reported a claim of $50, 000 that the estate denied.
Dementas claim should not be considered because Tallas’ promise to pay him the amount did not follow legal consideration. The payment was due to the past considerations of what he had done that is also referred to as no consideration. There was no sign of agreement made between them for instance, the argument that if you do for me this, I will do for you that. The court did not consider the claim of Dementas since the law states that there no consideration of a promise based on the past considerations.
Mirror
Under the doctrines of necessities, Fountain’s estate is liable to Yale. Since Fountain needed emergency attention of medical after injury, Fountain was entitled to a quicker treatment. Since Fountain was ill, he needed medical services even though he was a minor. Plaintiff offers him services that his parents could either pay or opt to pay. The plaintiff was taken to court for having offered medication to the minor but it was difficult for him to stop treating the minor because Fountain was shot right in the head by a playmate. As a result, the accident that made him lose in his eyes and he required quicker medical services that were difficult to deny.
The court denied the motion of Plaintiff, but the explanation by Fountain made the court ruled for Plaintiff since the law of necessities state that it is better to solve the situation at hand and then later view the component of the law. With the human heart, it is difficult to compare the life of a person and distribution of funds from the estate. Therefore, it was necessary for Plaintiff to applying extensive lifesaving medical services then later look for payment.
Based on the discussed cases, there is a partnership agreement that void, illegal contracts are unenforceable by the court. For instance, the court disagreed with the illegal contracts, and most judgments are passed for the original of the property instead of the person who was accepted by the owner to claim the property. It is because no clear evidence can convince the court that the agreement was made for the claimed contract.
