Facts: Tallas moved fromGreece to Salt Lake City in 1914. Dementas was a friend of Tallas who would runerrands for Tallas. During the end of 1982, the two met and Tallas handedDemantas a Memo that stated he owed him $50,000 and that he would also make hima heir.
Tallas went and notarized all the memos and then they were delivered toDemantas. Shortly after being delivered, Tallas died. Dementas noticed thatTallas didn’t make him an heir like he said he was going to. He filled a claimso he could receive the $50,000 and Tallas’s estate denied the action. During pretrial,the court said that the memo was an “acknowledgement” and it was then sent totrial.
The court ruled that the memo didn’t enforce a contract. Issue:Was the work that Dementas did for Tallas in the past sufficientconsideration to make the memo an enforceable contract? Holding:No, the prior work that Dementas performed was done with noexpectation of payment and he did not confer a legal determent. Thus, there isno consideration to support a contract. MajorityReasoning: (Orme) 1. Rule:Anything that happens before a contract is created, thatdoesn’t help with contract progression, isn’t covered by the establishedconsiderations 2.
Application:Consideration requires that an impairment has been bargainedfor and exchanged for a promise. While Dementas did do some work for Tallas, itwas done prior to the promise made by Tallas to pay him $50,000. Thus, therewas no bargained for exchange and no consideration to support a contract.
ConcurringOpinion(s) Reasoning: Bench and Davidson, JJ., concur. DissentingOpinion(s) Reasoning: No dissenting opinion. Part 2 QUESTION A 1.
Accordand satisfaction (compromise): A meeting in whichtwo parties agree to meet on the basis of actually compromising. Accord:When both the parties agree to accept something other thanwhat was originally offered. Satisfaction:performance of an accord. 2. Wayne Smith hired an attorney tocomplete his divorce papers. Wayne had signed a contract which stated that hewould pay his attorney (Olds) in periodic payments for the completed work. Asthis case went on, Wayne got behind on his periodic payments so at the end Oldssent him a bill for payment of $10,000.
Wayne didn’t agree on the amount thatwas sent so he sent Olds checks which totaled $8,500. Olds told Wayne that hewasn’t going to cash the checks due to the fact that they weren’t the full$10,000. Olds ended up suing Wayne for the remainder of the amount that wasdue. 3. B4. Yes, I think that these laws are veryhelpful in our society. This one is important because it protects both of theparties involved in the contract. This helps one party from changing the termsof the contract.
QUESTION B. 1. Insanebut not adjudged insane: being insane but not having beenadjudged insane by a court or an administrative agency. Anyone who enters intoa contract under this state is generally voidable.
2. Frank Edgar got diagnosed withAlzheimers in 2002. When he was in the hospital for surgery he expressed thefarms he owned to both of his sons. One of his sons Harry, received a largerportion of land than Norman. Norman went to the court and stated that hisfather wasn’t competent when he assigned the land. Three different people hadtestified to this in court.
While one attorney said Frank understood what hewas signing the papers for. But when they went back and looked and nursingrecords, they found out during that day when he signed papers, he was havinglucid periods. One argument that the courtcould make is that because of the lucid periods that he was having throughoutthe day and with several people testifying to him being “insane” they would saythat the contract was void. Because the he had lucid intervals throughout theday, the court could argue that he contract is enforceable. 3. Personally, I think that the courtwould rule that because Frank was having lucid periods during the day that hesigned the papers that the contract would be voidable. I then think that theywould give each of the sons both equal amounts of the property.
4. Yes, I think that this rule works wellwithin our society. One reason would be because and insane but not adjudgedinsane person doesn’t always know what they are doing. This also helps so thatthese people are taken advantage of. QUESTION C 1. Fraudby concealment: When one party hides material facts from the other party.
UndueInfluence: When a party takes advantage of another party due to a weaknessand influences them to enter into a contract. 2. Salzbery Mink Ranch was making TV advertisemtnsthat made people want to raise minks.
The Mink Ranch made it very clear thatyou didn’t need any additional training and anyone could raise minks in theirbasements or anywhere else. These advertisements also stated that the minkswere noseless, and you could make a six figure income just off of this. Manypeople got involved and they shortly realized that they needed advanced skillsto raise these minks. Over the three-year period that each of the paintiffs hadthese minks, they had no financial success.
They wanted to rescind thecontracts and get the money back. 3. I think that the court would rule that SalzberyMink Ranch did in fact commit fraud by concealment.
4. I feel like this one is a very important law inour society. It wouldn’t be fair for someone to go and tell someone all about acertain product and lie to the potential customer about it. Fraudulentmisrepresentation is a serious thing.
If this wasn’t a law we would have a lotmore of this going on in the world.