Real Estate Transaction
The words “equity does not serve the indolent” will hang Brutus even if he claims no to know the law. In the normal transaction of real estates the law of contract requires that that the buyer should disclose all information he has about the land including the interests that he has in the estates before purchase to ensure fairness in the business transaction. Brutus had been aware of the gains that come about with the land and therefore his liability to disclose information cannot be doubted, this is an aspect of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Naive too cannot escape the hangman; the expectations of a lawyer aren’t what is depicted by him. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, the courts made a rule that if someone possesses a skill and undertakes to use that skill to assist someone a duty of care then arises in that event. In this case Naive was a lawyer and therefore he had a duty to disclose information during the transaction.
At this point Naive still has the duty of disclosure, at this stage he is even more obliged to disclose the information than before because the matter too arises to the other contracting party. If he denies disclosing the information, such a contract would just be merely based on undue influence altogether .The contract would be said to be void ab initio, because of the presence of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The presence of Attorney John Esquire would greatly impact the duty of disclosure though the aspect of undue influence would now be absent since both parties have an attorney at their representation table. The Freedom of Contract does provide for both parties to disclose as much information before the consideration i...
... middle of paper ...
...h an accident. In Sullivan v. Porter, 861 A.2d 625 (2004) the courts made prerequisites for part performance: there must be a contract, the party seeking the contract partially performed the contract, and the vitiation is as a result of the other party’s mistake or misrepresentation. In this case Sui had already done part of her contractual obligations; the hurricane too was an act of God. Therefore if Sumi refuses to return Bernice’s earnest money won’t be an act against the law because indeed she had done partial portion of the contract.
Works Cited
Bar, C. ., Drobnig, U., Alpa, G., & European Commission. (2004). The interaction of contract law and tort and property law in Europe: A comparative study. München: Sellier.
Perlman, M. (2000). Conceptual flux: Mental representation, misrepresentation, and concept change. Dordrecht [u.a.: Kluwer Academic Publishers
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...
A legal discussion of the contractual breaches and their related legal elements will be examined in this section. Some of the legal issues surrounding the contractual breaches include, the legal implications of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), the defendant’s engagement in and outputs contract while under a requirements contract with my company, the doctrine of estoppel, and the issues of good faith and fair dealing. The definitions and some of the legal implications of the implied and requirements contracts were discussed in the preceding sections. An implied contract is defined as a “contract that is established by the conduct of a party rather than by the party’s written or spoken words” (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015,
While the judgment in the case of Bowman v Fels has allowed lawyers to feel safe from prosecution under s.328, and while the judgment has upheld the golden principle of legal privilege, there are larger questions which arise about what justice is and how we go about attaining it. Does our legal system want to protect individuals it knows or suspects to be guilty of a crime? It is true that the backbone of our legal system is the right to a fair trial, but should that right extend to known criminals? Is the objective of justice not being served through the prosecution of a known/suspected felon? Can in particular circumstances the means justify the end? These are all contentious questions that are brought up by this case, questions that have no right or wrong answer, questions rooted deeply in an individual’s interpretation of what is moral and what is just.
The scenario I have been given highlights the main complexity of contract law. It touches on issues such as unilateral contracts, revocation as well as advertisement. I will be advising Mick (claimant) answering: Whether Yummy chocolate is liable to give a year supply of chocolate as advertised?
It is highly unlikely that a court would find that Billy Jean owed Donald and Co a duty of care to avoid the purely economic loss. Pure economic loss is described as financial, monetary loss generally attributed to ‘damage’ to an individuals ‘wallet’. For a claim to be valid and considered the steps to pursue a cause of action in negligence must be followed, the first of which is establishing a duty of care owed, in this case by Billie Jean to Donald & co. In this case it is found that no duty of care is owed and thus no claim for compensation can be lodged. In an attempt to establish a duty of care the plaintiff must be deemed vulnerable under the salient factors, the plaintiff being Donald & Co which in this case are not vulnerable. This characterisation of non-vulnerability is derived from the class of sale of the property as well as numerous general assumptions as to the experience of Donald & Co. It is expected under the assumption of Caveat Emptor as well as for the magnitude of purchase that Donald & Co have access to the building records and history of inexperienced builder Billie Jean as well as the financial status of
In this essay I will endeavour to outline what the intended purpose of tort law is in the Irish legal system and how it has come about over centuries. I will include a brief outline of the meaning of tort law and the different kinds of Tort, I will also include a brief summary of the sister laws of tort, that being criminal and contract law.
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
...the people. If Brutus was the villain of this play, those thoughts would not have run through his mind. If he killed him for his own selfish greed, he would be rejoicing, not dwelling on the possible negative outcomes.
Brutus is proud of his reputation as an honourable and noble man, but he is often naïve. It is his focus on nobility and honour that leads him to be naïve. Cassius tries to convince Brutus to join the conspirators. Cassius constantly emphasizing words like “free” and “Rome”. Since Brutus is patriotic and this deceives Brutus into believing that killing Caesar is preventing Rome from being ruled under tyranny. He is also unable to recognize that the letters were sent by Cassius. (Cite) These all show that Brutus is gullible and easily manipulated. Furthermore, Brutus grants Antony permission to speak at Caesar’s funeral after him. Brutus trusts that Antony will justify Caesar’s death like how Brutus
In William Shakespeare’s play “Julius Caesar” the character, Brutus, is held high in society and is respected; he is always in a high position of power. Before murdering Caesar, Brutus was still entrusted with a fairly large amount of power. It is seen throughout the play that Brutus speaks well, so one can assume that he is well educated. Despite all of these traits that are shown, and despite him appearing as if he is doing the right thing, Brutus was mistaken. Brutus, and his fellow conspirators, were unjust in murdering Caesar.
Throughout the play, Brutus shows that he values honor. This is portrayed through his actions. For example, when he says, “I asked you for gold, which you denied me! I can’t raise money by dishonest means. Heavens! I’d rather turn my heart to coinage and drachmas from my blood, than steal small change from the calloused hands of peasants” (Shakespeare 167). At this moment in the play, Brutus is in desperate need of gold to pay his army. However Brutus goes without the gold instead of stealing from peasants and taking bribes. This is a very honorable act to sacrifice himself rather than sacrificing his honor
Brutus is so trusting in the people of Rome that he becomes oblivious to things. In this play in a few places it is obvious that Brutus is very trusting and he kind of does not realize other things that could happen and are happening. For example when Brutus dies thinking that everyone is true to him and no one has ever done him wrong. “My heart doth joy that yet in all my life/ I found no man but he was true to me.” (5.5.34-35). Brutus is saying that his heart is happy because his whole life everyone in Rome has been nothing but true to him. When reading this quote it reveals that Brutus is very oblivious to the fact that the men he was closest to were not true to him. The men in the conspiracy lied to Brutus about why they actually going to kill Caesar and they also lied just to get Brutus in the conspiracy in the first place. Brutus trusts these men but it leads to his
Business law is very broad concept of law which covers all the legal issues that include many commercial and domestic cases which make up most of the civil cases and there are only few criminal cases where there has been serious breach of law. With the help of reference to relevant case law, this essay will argue that Bob Wheelie suffered economic loss due to fraudulent
Misrepresentation refers to a circumstance where a person is induced to enter into a contract partly or entirely by untrue information made by the other party. Misrepresentation can lead to a contract to be voidable. Voidable contract means there is a valid contract whether is written or verbal. In any voidable contracts, a party has a choice whether to rescind or to continue with the contract. However, there are certain circumstances and elements of misrepresentation that can cause a contract to be voidable. Misrepresentation can occur in a number of ways. Under Section 18 of the Contract Act 1950, misrepresentation includes:-