ADMS 2610 Chapter Notes -Life Insurance, Rescission, Money Laundering

78 views5 pages

blueporpoise488

5 Apr 2014

School

York University

Department

Administrative Studies

Course

ADMS 2610

Professor

Robert Levine

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Any attempt to understand the concept of mistake in contract law is made quite difficult by both text writers and a reading of decided cases. The result is that it appears that there is no consensus or agreement on what mistake actually is. Thus, for your purposes, whenever you encounter mistake, you can consider the contract void or voidable depending on the nature of the mistake. In such a situation you can consider the contract void. A and b are negotiating the sale by a to b of a"s stamp collection. Both a and b believe that it is an ordinary stamp collection with a value somewhere around $ 5,000. 00, so they agree on a price of $ 4,700. 00, while unknown to either of them, the collection contains a stamp worth $ 100,000. 00, making the stamp collection really worth ,000. 00. Here, a would be able to set aside the contract, because there really was no contract at all.

Related Questions

Under which of the following conditions would the signing of a contract by Adam NOT be considered duress?
Answer
A. Ben holds a gun to Adam's head.
B. Ben is holding Adam on the ground threatening to beat him.
C. Ben threatens the entire criminal prosecution process against Adam, "When I finish with you, you'll be underneath the jail!"
D. None of the above, that is, ALL of the above examples would constitute duress by Ben upon Adam.

Andy Youngman called at the used car lot of Shearem & Co. and saw a 1979 automobile with $1000 painted on the windshield. Shearem lied to Andy telling him that the car was a 1980 model, but Andy knew that it was NOT because Andy knew the 1980 models were smaller. Is the contract voidable for Fraud because Shearem said it was a 1980 model?

Answer
A. YES
B. NO

In the above Question #31, was there an offer to sell the car for $1000?
Answer
A. YES
B. NO

Cindy purchases a sparkling stone from Sally for $20. At the time of contracting, neither party had any idea what the stone was. Later, when Sally is cleaning the stone before delivery to Cindy, she discovers that it is an uncut diamond worth $200,000. Based on the above situation:
Answer
A. Sally can have the contract rescinded on the basis of unilateral mistake.
B. Cindy can have the contract rescinded on the basis of unilateral mistake.
C. Either or each of the parties can have the contract rescinded on the basis of mutual mistake.
D. Neither party can have the contract rescinded on the basis of mutual mistake. This is an arms length transaction. The contract stands.

Edsel, an attorney, requests bids for built-in bookcases for his new office. Three contractors, Larry, Curley and Moe submit bids. The bids are $5300, $5100 and $520 respectively. Moe's bid of $520 was way off the mark, considering the specifications that were to be included in the bid. Edsel accepts Moe's bid. Moe then realizes his error and discovers his "missing zero" of his bid. His bid should have read "$5200". Based on the above situation, the contract is probably:
Answer
A. Not voidable; Moe would be forced to complete the contract at the accepted price.
B. Voidable, on the basis of mutual mistake.
C. Voidable on the basis of unilateral mistake.
D. Voidable on the basis of fraud.

Learning focus: contract formation, voluntary consent, void and voidable contracts, executory contracts, Statute of Frauds.

Learning Activity 1:

Scenario: Don, an elderly man, lives with his nephew Evan. Don is entirely dependent on Evan for support and his care. Evan advised Don to "invest" in Evan's new consulting business or Evan will no longer support him. Don liquidated his other investments and a trust fund, and signed a contract with Evan giving all his investments and trust funds to Evan for Evan's new business.

Later, Don had doubts about Evan's new consulting business and wanted out of the contract.

Can Don set aside the contract with Evan, or is it valid and enforceable? Why or why not?

Learning Activity 2:

Scenario: Tom owned a house set on 1 acre of land that he wanted to sell when he retired in April, 2013. On April 1, 2012, Mary and Tom orally agreed that Mary would purchase Tom's house and 1 acre of land for $350,000 cash on April 15, 2013. In the meantime, Mary and Tom agreed that Tom would continue to own and live on the property. On April 15, 2013, Mary presented Tom with a cashier's check for $350,000 for the house and Tom transferred the deed to the house and land to Mary in her name. Mary and Tom properly filed all the documents necessary for the closing on the real estate sale. Mary and Tom had also agreed previously that Tom could remain on the property following the closing of the sale on April 15, 2013 until April 17, 2013 to give him time to move out. On April 17, Tom refused to move out claiming that their oral agreement for sale of the property was invalid and unenforceable under the Statue of Frauds.

1. Was the sale originally subject to the Statute of Frauds and if so, for what reason(s) and why?

2. Is the contract for sale of the property valid so that Tom has to relinquish possession of the property? Why or why not?

turquoisemink326

"Leaky Tub and Flaming Watercraft." Charles finished college, got a good job, and decided to sell some used toys and buy newer ones. A used hot tub with a leak in it and a personal watercraft were at the top of the list. Charles offered to sell to Constance the hot tub for $500. Constance was interested but not willing to pay $500. She said "I'll give you $400." Charles said that he would think about it. Later, the same day, Charles offered to sell Donna the hot tub for $500. Donna said "Would you consider $450?" Charles said he would think on it. A few minutes later, Everett who had heard that Charles wanted to sell the hot tub accepted Charles' offer to sell for $500, and they agreed that the transfer would be made the next day. A few minutes later, Constance called saying that she accepted Charles' offer to sell the hot tub for $500. A few minutes after that, Donna called and told Charles that she accepted his offer to sell the hot tub for $500. Charles told Constance and Donna that he had already sold it, and they are angry, threatening to sue. Charles offered to sell the personal watercraft to Joan for $800. She said that she would think it over and let him know the next day. Unfortunately, through no fault of anyone, there was a fire at Charles' home that night and the personal watercraft burned. Joan called the next day and accepted before Charles could tell her the watercraft burned. When she found out about the fire, Joan told Charles that he had better come up with another watercraft, or she was going to sue.

What effect does the accidental destruction of the personal watercraft have on the deal between Charles and Joan?

a. Charles is in breach of contract and must purchase a similar watercraft to transfer to Joan.

b. Charles is in breach of contract and must pay Joan damages because she accepted before he could tell her about the fire.

c. Charles is not in breach of contract because an insufficient material term involving who would move the watercraft was omitted.

d. Charles is not in breach of contract because of destruction of the subject matter.

e. Charles is not in breach of contract because the offer was not sufficiently definite.

ADMS 2610 Chapter Notes -Life Insurance, Rescission, Money Laundering

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ADMS 2610 Chapter Notes - Chapter 4: Financial Statement, Car Rental, Poorhouse

ADMS 2610 Lecture : About Mistake.doc

ADMS 2610 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Drywall, Undue Influence, Uberrima Fides

Related Questions