Issue
Robert Olins, the defendant in the case was found to be in breach of contract by a lower court. A lease was drafted and signed by Robert Olins and Pan Handle Realty, LLC for a year’s period. Part of the agreement was that Pan Handle Realty, LLC was to unfurnish the property and Olins was to make payments for the amount of a year’s rent (Cross & Miller, 2015). Olins had issued a postdated check which was to be cashed after Pan Handle Realty, LLC had completed the modifications in the house. It was then that the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had instructed the bank not to pay the check. The defendant’s explanation that he had changed his resolve was insufficient and he was consequently sued for breaching the terms of the contract (Cross & Miller, 2015).
The law offers remedies when either party in a legally binding contract incurs damages due to the failure of the other party or parties to meet their obligations as expressed in the contract.
Application
There is evidence to show that both the defendant and the plaintiff deliberately desired to be bound by the terms of the lease. For instance, the defendant requested for modifications before he could move into the property at a hefty cost to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested a tentative date for occupancy, a security deposit to which the defendant complied through the postdated check and renter’s insurance policy which also the defendant provided. There was no subjective evidence to show that the defendant had not intentions to be bound by the terms of his contract. Consequently, his actions to stop the payment of the postdated check was against the terms of the lease, and his explanation that the contract was still under negotiation when he signed the terms was insufficient and of no effect on the validity of the contract.
Conclusion
The appeal judges confirmed the holding of the judge in the lower court as well as his assessment of the damages and the remedies to be applied.
Legal Reasoning Questions
What is the objective theory of contracts?
It holds that the determination of a mutual agreement to a contract is done by assessing external and objective acts rather than internal and objective intentions (Cross & Miller, 2015).
How did the objective of theory of contracts affect the result in the case? Explain
The defendant change of resolve with regard to the lease agreement was unilateral. The determination of the case did not consider this aspect. Instead, it considered the objective evidence and found that his claims that the lease was still under negotiation and he had not intentions of being bound were not supported by objective evidence, hence the affirmation of the judgement (Cross & Miller, 2015). Instead, there was objective evidence to demonstrate the intention of both the plaintiff and defendant to agree to the terms.
The defendant never moved into the house. Why did the court find that he breached the lease?
The execution of the lease was not dependent on his relocation into the house. By appending a signature to the lease featuring all the terms and revisions agreed upon by both parties, they entered into a contract and the lease was executed (Cross & Miller, 2015).
On finding that the defendant breached the lease, what did the court impose as a sanction? How was this determined?
The plaintiff was awarded damages for the losses he suffered as a direct result of the breach by the defendant. This was determined by reviewing the records showing that the plaintiff had to remove the furnishings on the property as part of the request by the defendant and that following the breach, the plaintiff incurred expenses of 80,000 dollars to refurnish the property in readiness for the rental market (Cross & Miller, 2015).
References
Cross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2015). The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western College/West
