Fiduciary duty is the main topic of the case presented. Within this case, a father named Perry Olsen died. His children received his land upon his death. They wanted to sell majority of the land. The land they didn’t sell, they wanted to keep. The children hire a real estate broker from Veil Associates to represent them. The real estate broker first introduced them to Magnus Lindholm, who wanted to buy Perry’s land along with the adjacent land owned by the children. The children had an asking price of 400 dollars per acre. Since Lindholm wanted more land than the children were willing to sell, he asked the children’s real estate broker to introduce him to another landowner Del Rickstrew, who also had land adjacent to Perry’s land. The real estate broker did provide a model contract. As time passes, Rickstrew eventually sold his land to Lindholm for six thousand …show more content…
The real estate broker was not aware of this sale. The children eventually sold their land to Lindholm for four hundred dollars an acre. When they realized that the adjacent land was bought for a larger amount of money than theirs, they sued the real estate broker for failure to disclose material information. The question is, Did Vail associates breach a fiduciary duty? Fiduciary duty is an agent’s duty to act loyally for the principle’s benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship. These duties include avoiding conflicts of interest with the principle and not disclosing confidential information received from the principle. There can be many other duties of an agent in a principle-agent relationship. The Olsen children argued that the broker broke the law of fiduciary duty by becoming an undisclosed dual agent. A dual agent is one that represents both sides during a transaction. When becoming a dual agent, the agent
In “The Unscrupulous Partner” ethics case, Andrea Fuller is a tax partner at a local certified public accounting firm located in Southern California. Ed McDouglass is a general partner of Skyline Views, a limited liability partnership that constructs, operates and sells condominiums. By devoting 100% of his time into the limited liability partnership and taking charge of any situation, Ed functions as the general manager for Skyline Views. Therefore, he is allowed a management fee to include two percent of expenses and ten percent of the year’s net income if it exceeds $100,000. As a result, Ed hired Andrea to complete the tax return for Skyline Views.
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
Mr. Williams grape farm is a local family business. Within family businesses family member often work as spokespersons on the company’s behalf. Mr.Williams’s son was also made away of the formalities of the contract. Mr. Williams’ son signed
Contracts that are not for the sale of good which includes contracts for employment, real property, insurance, and others are governed by the common law and summarized in the Restatement of Contracts. Based on the expressed or implied contract presented in this case, the contract is governed by the common law. Therefore, Mr. Pending’s promise to Mr. Thompson is valid and enforceable under the case law and general law of contracts.
Rule of Law: The rule of law that would be applied on this case would be the rule of the quasi contracts. This is a type of contract that is implied but no actual contract really exists. The quasi contracts were formed to avoid one party to be unjustly enriched on the expense of another (Miller, 2015, pp. 256-257).
In addition to that, Winnie was also advised that 50 townhouses could be built at the cost of $100,000 each and they could sell for $1m each. Seemingly, she took the latter advice and installed office cabins on the site and personally managed the entire construction, sales, and marketing activities in July 2016. 50 townhouses on an equal size and value blocks were constructed, and after one year (June 30, 2017) half of these (25) had been sold for a total of $25m. Following the description above, I will provide Winnie with a detailed advice of the possible income tax consequences of the $25m real estate sales in 2017. Other factors related to the advice will include a review of the alternative views based on the facts, using quality legal references. The paper will also cover the assessable income resulting from each alternative view, and my opinion on which I think is the better or
The dispute arises from a contract to dispose of the claimant’s vehicle. The issue was to resolve that defendant terminated the contract on the ground of repudiator breach and thus excluding them from the tendering process, when the claimant dealt with the vehicle without their consent, therefore the court has to decide whether the defendant had acted in bad faith. While dealing with the case, Dove J considered the length of the contractual relationship, the number of transactions and the substance of the contract. Thus he stated that good faith required the act of mutual trust and confidence between the parties and any act which is inconsistent with the party’s common purpose of long term relationship would be sufficient to constitute breach. His honour justice then recognised that there were not only breaches in express terms of the contract but also the implied terms of the duty of good faith. By satisfying the reasonable person test, Dove J declared that claimant’s grave misconduct had led to the termination of the contract and subsequent exclusion from the tender, therefore, there is no bad faith constitute in accordance of the defendants conduct. Then he referred Leggatt J in Yam Seng and reasoned that while interpreting the terms of the contract, court should take into account the background of the individual case and decide what would be reasonably and objectively to mean. Consequently, court went on to emphasise that several terms of the contract is highly sensitive to the context of the contract itself and thus warrant the implied duty of good faith. There is another sensitive issue also involved in this case, as D&G entered into a contract for dealing with the recovered property of member of the public; it was grave mistake to
... case, a son complained that he receives less property than his brother does. At that time, his father promised him that he would release him from the debt if he would stop complaining. But after his father’s death executors came to recover the debt in consideration for his promise. The executors have found the consideration for no future complaints, for this releasing from the debt is not a good consideration, so son will continue to be liable.
However, most of the people whose homes were in this area had given their properties up for just compensation by the city without a struggle; only a small portion went to the courts about losing their land. The main reason behind these people taking legal action was because apparently they held a connection to their land; many had spent much time working on their home to bring it to the condition it was, raising its value not only marketably but sentimentally as well (Linder). Despite the promise of being justly compensated for being relieved of their land - which would have been generous seeing as all the properties in question seemed to be in good condition, because the people who sued the state felt that the labor (or other reasons for attachment) outweighed whatever they would have received for it by the city they tried to keep their
First of all, it is important for us to understand this case in term of the rule and law .When this Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] case occurred, the doctrine of promissory estoppel had play an important role in English and Irish contract law. Besides that, it also brought an impact in other countries and became an important reference for the cases in the future. Promissory Estoppel was derived from equity and it occur when a party that relies on the promise of another party is injured or damaged . When the other party to the contract alters his/her deeds in reliance of that promise, a court will likely apply the Promissory Estoppel doctrine in order to prevent the party from enforcing the original terms of the contract and it also allows a promise to enforce even without any consideration.
Fraudulent misrepresentation is one of three types of misrepresentations in contract law. In order to ...
Sherwood was invited to one of Mr. Walker’s pastures under the presumption that Mr. Sherwood was there to buy cattle off of Walker. This displayed the action of implied covenant, on the good faith that Sherwood would buy cattle from Walker. Shortly after this time as the two arranged for Mr. Sherwood to browse Walker’s selection of cattle, sir Sherwood did present an offer of business to Walker. Mr. Walker agreed to the offer presented by Sherwood thus, creating mutual assent. It is true that, Mr. Sherwood presented Walker with an offer over the cow called Rose 2d of Aberlone. The two men and made an agreement and settled on the idea of selling the cow for five and a half cents per pound of weight of the cow. Thus, solidifying the terms of the contract with each other. However, soon after Walker discovered his cow he had recently agreed to sell, was in fact with calf and not barren. Later when Mr. Sherwood showed up to make payment over the cow, Walker refused to accept payment and had breached the contract because he would not follow through with his previous agreement made just days before. The contract would not be made void because the terms were very clear with each other. Sherwood presented an offer, Walker accepted the offer. Both men and made an agreement over the offer for five and a half cents per pound of weight on the cow. It is true now that Mr. Walker was tied to make duty over the contract they agreed to days earlier. However, in the eyes of Mr. Sherwood because Mr. Walker refused to accept payment and rejected to deliver the cow he believed Walker had breached the
v. Borden Inc. the issue is whether an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the facts of this case overrides a contractual right to terminate the subject contract without cause. Is Marshall justified in expecting to remain in partnership with my company do to the contractual right he has written in this contract? I believe here we can take in account a minor 's capacity to contract and ultimately fraud in the execution of a contract as well. In (2005 University of Oregon, Oregon law review) the article argues that courts should abandon the rule that every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith. If the contract is sufficiently fair that it is not unconscionable or in violation of public policy and it is sufficiently clear that no implied obligation is required to make the contract enforceable or unambiguous, then no implied covenant of good faith is necessary or
George’s act of taking a second mortgage without the consent of his brother Tony is a breach of their contract . By agreeing to register the property under his brother’s name, Tony was acting upon the goodwill and utmost faith and did not expect being shortchanged. Utmost good faith is a vital principle in property management. It involves disclosure of the contract terms to both interested parties. Failure to abide by the rules often leads to severe consequences. Before the signing of the agreement, each must understand the terms and conditions of the contract.
5. Members act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, disclosing nothing of a proprietary nature concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without specific consent.