The facts of this case are presented very clearly. Ashton Kutcher, owner of Ashton Acres, and Byrd Busch, owner of Bud Liteacres, have adjoining 100 acre farms. Separating the two was a barbwire fence. In addition, a large swamp encompassed part of both acreages (10 acres of Ashton Acres and 50 acres of Bud Liteacres). The two owners met over coffee where Busch orally proposed a trade of 25 acres for the draining of the swamp and a payment of $50,000 ($5,000 up front and $45,000 upon completion). The two owners shook hands on the deal and proceed to mark the 25 acres Ashton would receive upon completion. Ashton then paid Busch $5,000 as a down payment and began working on the swamp. Over a 30 day period, Ashton successfully completes the work using his own materials and labor and prepares a $45,000 payment for Busch. However, when Ashton arrives to present the check to Busch, Busch is not home. Instead he left a note saying the deal was off, as there was no contract between the two, and the barbwire fence needed to be returned to its original position between the farms. Unfortunately for Ashton, Busch is correct. There is no enforceable contract between the two landowners. The oral agreement is not enforceable because it involves the transfer of land and the sale of goods between the two is greater …show more content…
Because the work Ashton completed, benefitted 50 acres of Bud Liteacres and only 10 of Ashton Acres, the costs divided by the two should reflect that split. A total of 60 acres were benefitted and Busch owned 50 of those 60 acres. This means about 80% of the work done was advantageous for Busch’s property. Only about 20% benefitted Ashton Acres. Thus, the costs should be split in a similar manner with Busch paying 80% and Ashton absorbing 20% (it doesn’t make sense for Ashton to pay
Answer: No, it is not enforceable because there was no bargained-for exchange. Pablo did not give Xerxes Corp. something of legal value in return for this promise. Therefore, if Pablo
Instead of executing the release, Andrew Ross, a construction manager with Bent Tree, responded with a request for $124,191.29. In this request, Mr. Ross stated that their cost for the damages was greater than what was currently being offered. The claimant provided additional invoices that were later reviewed by the independent adjuster. Mr. Rushziky’s review of the estimates found that there is an $8,364.87 difference at Replacement Cost.
The company Builder Square, Inc. was in the market to sell, subletting, or leasing vacant K-mart stores, in-turn found Network Group to carry out this process throughout the Ohio area. A deal was struck that Reisenfeld’s with the company Network that they would receive $1 per square foot for a store that was subleased totaling $260,320 in commissions. Unfortunately, Network’s sole shareholder was defrauding BSI in various ways. As a result, that Reisenfeld’s was left high and dry, with no money from the commission. After having a suit brought against Reisenfeld’s, and BSI stated that under restitution (unjust enrichment). Under Ohio law, there are three elements for quasi-contract claim. There must be (1) a benefit conferred by the plaintiff upon the defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be unjust to do without payment (Kubasek, 2015, p. 313). It is the third one that the disagreement was based on was having the problem with; whether it would be unjust for BSI to retain the benefit it received without paying Reisenfeld’s for it. The courts ruled that Reisenfeld’s may seek payment from BSI under quasi-contract theory this in fact overruled the trial court’s judgment.
When Berry and I gave Billy Greene our note for the purchase of his store, he assigned it—without advising us—to Reuben Radford from whom he had previously bought the business. Radford then endorsed our note to Peter Van Bergen, a keen-eyed businessman, to satisfy a debt. When Radford failed to pay, Van Bergen brought suit against Berry and me.
When a group Olympic Valley, California residents decided to start a petition to incorporate the community, property owners and local businesspersons immediately began debating the issue. Those in favor of incorporation wanted to make Olympic Valley into a town, so the community could govern itself by electing a town council. Those against incorporation claimed that the town wouldn't be able to afford to maintain services, such as snow plowing, that were essential to the community.
This case involved 2 parties, Tom Gentry and John Marsh. These two where in a partnership with each other and they were involved in buying and selling horses. They would buy horses then sell the babies for profit and also just sell the horse as well at many types of auctions. In November 1976 Marsh and Gentry bought these two horses together called Champagne Woman and Excitable lady. In 1978 Marsh and Gentry auctioned off Champagne Lady and Gentry used an anonymous bidder so Marsh wouldn’t find out that he used one to acquire Champagne Lady without telling Marsh. There was a fiduciary relationship between them and he broke it by not telling him because it can alter their profits because of this. When Gentry was supposed to be selling Excitable Lady, he didn’t pay Marsh instead he just didn't tell him. So a couple years down the road, Marsh soon realizes that
New urbanism evokes a community that promotes walkability, connectivity, diversity, sustainability, green transportation, increased density, and a higher quality of life (New Urbanism, n.d). Mixed housing adds to socio-economic diversity and builds on community sustainability through balance. A community center adds interconnectivity and a sense of belonging. An area that promotes walkability with local conveniences and outdoor space promotes a healthier lifestyle. These are the some of the main components that Prairie Crossing, Illinois included in their community plan that offers a better quality of life.
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
It all started back in 1989 when Home Savings of America announced to build a giant new community consisting of 3,050 homes, two schools, two hotels, two golf courses and 400,000 square feet of commercial and industrial areas on the 5,400-acre Ahmanson Ranch located at the eastern end of Ventura county, adjacent to Los Angeles County. Even though the Ahmanson Ranch has been owned by Home Savings of America since 1963, the nature remained undisturbed all these past years. The ranch has become one of the important habitats for barely surviving native organisms including threatened or endangered species. For this and other important reasons, an organization, Friends of Ahmanson Ranch, was formed to stop the development with the support from other environmental organizations, local legislatures, politicians and public. Almost seven years have passed since the beginning of this issue, but the conflict still remain unsolved. What is interesting about this issue is the diversity in the reason which the Friends of Ahmanson Ranch claims for protecting the Ahmanson Ranch from development. They point out a variety of reason, and they are not necessarily environmental opinion.
On September 19, 1865 a land cession treaty was signed at Canville Trading Post. The Great and Little Osage Indians had enough land to do what they needed to for their occupation, but had no money to live on because previous funds from other treaties had ended. The Osage ceded 871,791.11 aces and the total amount for the sale of the land was $776,931.58.7 The Osage tribe was compensated for the cession and sale of the land by the United States. The US “agreed to pay the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, which sum shall be placed to the credit of said tribe of Indians in the Treasury of the United States, and interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum shall be paid to said tribes semi-annually, in money, clothing, provisions, or such articles of utility as the Secretary of the Interior may, from time to time,
My educational plans after highschool is to attend my future college is to go to Cosumnes River college, there I plan to take extra classes to help me to be at the education level I need to be. During this time I hope to get my Agriculture Associate degree and be under the transfer program. After I plan to transfer to UC Davis and pursue a international Agriculture Masters and bachelors degree. During my time in college I plan to be involved in internship to gain experience in possible career choices and the abroad program.
Apparently McLaughlin did not think so and felt that by the action of Mr. Heikklia by changing the cost of parcels mean that they were without a “meeting of the minds.” There was no deal since the land transaction was not in writing. Then Mr. McLaughlin sued Mr. Heikklia on the grounds “to compel specific performance of the purchase agreements under the terms of the agreements before Heikkila withdrew his offer” (Cheeseman, 2013).
- main collateral for the deal (land) would only become gradually available as the government first
The court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract because “the court felt the contract was extremely one-sided. [ Also], it was wrong for Campbell to ask for the court’s help in enforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that “shocks the conscience of the court”)” (Rogers,
Hogsmeadow Garden Centre is a popular tourist area of the UK, which mainly sells garden-related products in shops and high-quality food in restaurants. In the past few years, Hogsmeadow Garden Centre was expanded and the number of customers sharply increased. However, the sales revenue and profitability hadn’t grown as fast. The aim of this essay is to discuss the main micro-operations at Hogsmeadow Garden Centre and its main input resources, transformation process and outputs, the problems faced by Don Dursley in managing and developing his centre and the solutions to improve the profitability of his business.