McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005). …show more content…
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). According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals (2005) the written offer is not evidence of a completed contract and therefore no contract existed. This is clearly an incident where the offeree, McLaughlin, did not accept the terms as stated in the offer which is what Cheeseman (2013) explains did not meet the mirror image rule: “for an acceptance to exist, the offeree must accept the terms as stated in the
The contract was created to be lawful, not intentional to be illegal b. Knowingly and willfully acts, a required element of AKS, was not the basis of the initial of the contract c. Smith Kline did not solicit remuneration from the partners Cons that support that Hanlester should be viewed as
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that the State shall not deprive any person equal protection of the laws. When equal protection is guaranteed, the outcome must be fair; in other words, substantive justice must be present. Based on this interpretation, McCleskey v. Kemp should be overturned because McCleskey’s death was a racially biased and unfair outcome that was not constitutionally protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that in order for McCleskey to prove his innocence and the presence of a racially discriminatory criminal sentencing procedure, he had to meet a three-factor standard. First, he had to prove he was a member of a group that has historically suffered differential treatment. Second, McCleskey had to establish the extent of this treatment. Last, he had to prove that the process by which the death penalty was chosen was open to racial bias. McCleskey met all three prongs of this standard, and even though the Court’s decision denied his claim that he was not guaranteed equal protection, there is enough evidence to prove the selection process was not racially neutral and that a violation of the 14th Amendment was present. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
...d for you to sign and the land will be yours... no-one will bother you on your land” (pg.105). This incident leads to a long chain of corrupt acts. All community members signed, rather, finger printed the document and we’re assured “they could rely on this paper as it is the title to the land” (pg. 105). Two years passed and they returned with the document in hand, claiming the land was no longer theirs to live off of. The signed document was in truth an agreement to live on the land for a mere two years and a promise to uproot once the two years expired. In conjunction with the Labour Unions, Rigoberta’s father fights this upheaval, however the landowners bribe the judges lawyers and interpretors involved in the crooked legal battles, twisting the communities stance says the landowners offered a great deal of money to the judge through -machines/market/lawyers
The Aston City Ordinance Leaves Open Ample Alternative Channels Of Communication Because It Only Applies In The Square Area And Only Applies To Verbal Solicitation.
An acceptance is “a final and ineligible expression of assent to the terms of an offer”. Acceptance of an offer can be tenacious through the following guidelines: (1) the acceptance must be communicated with the intention of both parties to enter a mutual contract; however, the offer may be revoked prior to acceptance, (2) the offer can only accept the initial terms and can only be accepted by the intended offeree, (3) the offeree must accept the terms through a concrete method if authoritatively mandated by offeror. [Contracts Law: Offer and Acceptance]. Pine Trees failed to mention/incorporate their disclaimer of consequential damages in the initial terms, engendering a counter offer. (Aguilar Manufacturing v. Richfield)
Edwards's contract required him to respect all prior legal claims. He “issued a notice that all who had such claims should present them to him to be passed upon. Haden Edwards tried to eject settlers who could not show clear title.” (Ericson, 2003) The claims of the people he believed would be allowed to keep their land and the claims of those he
The facts presented in State v. Fischer would lead a rational trier of fact to have reasonable doubt that Fischer knowingly possessed methamphetamine. The majority concedes to the fact that the State did not offer any direct evidence to establish the “knowingly” element of possession of methamphetamine. The defendant’s knowledge was not determined on the basis of his exclusive ownership or exclusive access to the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was never identified; the passenger of the vehicle was never identified. Fischer possessing marijuana on his person and refusing to submit to a urinalysis likely because of the marijuana in his system is not enough for any rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew
Through the history of the united states, issues have been relevant enough to make it to the supreme court, where justice was imposed and appropriate decisions to solve the problem fairly followed. These decisions shaped society, either for the better or worse, which shaped the current time period situations. Although, in most cases, such as the Dred Scott v Sandford, the decisions were, later on, declared unconstitutional. But, if the issue for this case had not been brought up to court the situation would never have been up for discussion.
The Supreme Court Case, Kisela v. Hughes established that the Tuscon police officer, Andrew Kisela, did not break any laws due to his actions of shooting Amy Hughes. When I first read the introduction to this case, I was not surprised with the outcome. I trust that when I hear a policeman has been given the authority to carry a gun and protect the community, they will have the proper training to make the right decisions in the few moments they have to make life-and-death decisions. Police officers should be trained to make decisions (like shooting someone) very fast, but sometimes we forget that they are people too. I think that Officer Kisela made the decision that he thought was the right one in the moment. This woman was not responding to the officer that was giving her clear directions, had a dangerous knife, and appeared to be a threat to other people. Even though the other woman claimed she didn’t feel threatened, the officer had only the
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
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