ENTERPRISE LAW 200909 Assessment task 2b Individual Case Study
Lauren and Thomas’ agreement to sell the house was not real, and their loan is not enforceable.
Thomas agreed to the sale of Lauren’s house to him under false pretenses, according to the evidence, rendering the contract invalid. As a real estate agent, he knew the property was worth more than he was asking. Lauren was also treated unequally under the loan agreement because the loan would be given to Thomas instead of her.
In essence, she will provide Thomas the funds to purchase the home, with Thomas repaying the principal over 14 years at a rate of $100,000 per year, with the last payment due on the anniversary of the sale. The contractual agreements also stated that there would be no interest charged.
If Thomas and Lauren’s loan agreement is to be followed out, the loan contract must include a reasonable interest rate.
In this scenario, though, there was no need to pay interest. The annual percentage rate of the loan is significant since it will be needed to pay future taxes, and interest is the cost of borrowing money. Lauren has the option of terminating the agreement to sell the house and the loan agreement due to Thomas’s dishonesty.
Fraud is defined as making false statements regarding the contract’s topic or related items. There is deceit because Thomas misrepresents the true worth of the house, as seen in the case above. If the major reason for the termination is fraud, contracts or agreements may be terminated. Lauren might use this as the principal reason for cancelling the entire transaction, including the property sale contract and the financing agreement.
Even when the contract is signed, the buyer does not have immediate ownership of the property. One or both parties must still meet certain requirements before the transfer of ownership can take place.
This is a fantastic location to start because there isn’t yet a proper transfer. Lauren has complete ability to cancel the arrangements as the contract’s principal and seller. Thomas was also to blame for not disclosing the house’s full value and taking advantage of Lauren’s senior status. He also took advantage of Lauren’s lack of business knowledge, particularly in terms of the house’s genuine value and how a sale should be handled.
ANSWER 2 :
Jennifer signed a written contract with WC, which provides her with a set amount of money to spend on taps. Jennifer selects a brand. When Jennifer was looking through some invoices, she noticed that WC had charged her for more than the budgeted amount for the taps. When she questioned this, John from WC stated that the tap model she had requested had been discontinued, and that the tap style that replaced her model had been installed, and she said nothing.
Felthouse v Bindley: Contract Law Provision
The case’s facts Referred- The complainant, Paul Felthouse, discussed the purchase of his horse with his nephew, John Felthouse. Following their conversation, the uncle wrote a letter stating that if he didn’t hear from his nephew about the horse, he would consider the transaction completed and he would own the horse. His nephew did not respond to the current letter since he was too preoccupied with auctions. Mr. Bindley, the defendant, ran the auctions, and his nephew encouraged him not to sell the horse. He did, however, mistakenly sell the horse to someone else.
Issues in the case– Paul Felthouse sued Mr. Bindley for conversion, and it was required to show that the horse was his property in order to establish that there was a valid contract. Mr. Bindley claimed that because the nephew had not conveyed his acceptance of the complainant’s offer, there was no legal contract for the horse. During this case, the issue was whether silence or refusal to reject a proposition constituted approval.
Conclusion – It was determined that the complainant and his nephew did not have a contract for the horse. There had been no acceptance of the offer; silence did not imply acceptance, and no one can impose an obligation on another.
Conclusion in our Case: Based on the above case study, it can be concluded that unless the parties agree otherwise or have established a usage or course of dealing between them, a party’s silence after receiving an offer to conclude a contract does not constitute acceptance because silence does not constitute a valid contract. As a result, in our circumstance, Jennifer’s silence does not imply contract acceptance.
Jennifer is correct in her unwillingness to pay the additional money.
Get expert help for Installing a mezzanine floor and adding staircase and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!No Fields Found.