Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Renting vs buying compare and contrast
Compare and contrast renting vs owning
Advantages of owning vs renting
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Renting vs buying compare and contrast
FACTS: In 2007, Hung and Carol Nguyen entered a contract with Kevin Morton to purchase a property. After complying for 3 years, the Nguyens advised Morton that they would be utilizing their statutory right to cancel and revoke the contract for deed. Along with the cancelation, they ordered to get reimbursed for all thirty-four payments made, down payment, insurance policy payments made, and taxes paid during the term. Leading Morton to not only making the Nguyens vacate the property, but demanded payments and sued them for breaking the terms in the contract. Counterclaiming, the Nguyens’, accused Morton violated the property code and did not meet the requirements under Subchapter D. However, Morton argued that the Nguyens’ we’re not supposed …show more content…
Due to the fact that the court did not consider the time the Nguyens spent in the property, the case was referred to the trial court to decide Nguyens’ responsibility for the rental value during occupation. Corresponding, Morton was granted a petition for review. LAW: Section 5.077 of property Code, which provides buyers with the amount paid and remaining payments under contract, was broken, allowing The Nguyens to use their statutory right, a right granted under the property code, to end the contract. Subchapter D's cancellation-and-rescission, which states that one has to give the seller a timely notice and offer to tender to the property due to any of the sellers’ benefits derived. Because Morton’s restitution was not considered, he was granted a petition for review. REASON: Because the Nguyens terminated the contract due to Morton’s negligence of the property code, they were awarded with the following; actual damages, liquidated damages for violation of the property code, statutory remedy for violations of the finance code, mental anguish damages, attorney’s fee, and costs. However, Chapter’s 5, Subchapter D provides both parties with restitution benefits, not just one of them. Because the court did not consider the time the Nguyens spent in the property, the case was referred to the trial court to decide Nguyens’ responsibility for the rental value
However in correspondence of 21st March1952 the defendant instigated an alteration to the legal position of both parties, by offering to commence "without prejudice" the delivery instruction covering the balance of bullets, provided that the final delivery would not be made later than 30th September 1952. The plaintiff first repudiated this offer on the 3rd April, but by the 4th of June 1952, a second critical letter was sent out by the plaintiff's solicitor stating its acceptance of the defendant's offer. On 8th July 1952, the defendant propose that it will only purchase 800,000 bullets as opposed to the contracted amount of 1,800,000(less 200,000 which had been delivered and paid) as the contract on the 2nd August had not been accepted by the plaintiff which denied it. And no delivery instructions were given by the defendant on or before the 30th September.
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...
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
This decision was used as a precedent for other cases involving real estate law, specifically the Caveat Emptor law. The Caveat Emptor previously only covered physical complications with a property, but this case made it clear that any condition or stigma that diminished the value of a property could be used as grounds to terminate a contract if the buyer is not informed
Plaintiff Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Redwood Falls (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Housing Authority Property Insurance (“Defendant”) participated in an appraisal hearing to resolve their dispute regarding the scope and value of a fire loss that damaged Plaintiff’s insureds buildings. The appraisal panel considered evidence and testimony presented by both parties, determined the value of the loss, and issued an appraisal award in the amount of $3,097,512.80.
The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract,
FACTS: David W. Elrod, litigation law firm, hired A-Legal, litigation support services, on January 26, 2009 and delivered to them documents and computer disks to start electronic discovery work on the “R Project”. A few days after A-Legal received the necessary files to begin working they informed Elrod that their services were going to be twice as much than what had been previously mentioned. Elrod, subsequently, cancelled their arrangements and looked elsewhere for services. A-Legal submitted its files as requested and billed Elrod $15,000.00, which Elrod refused to pay. A-Legal filed suite for breach of contract and Elrod counterclaimed for breach of contract, as well. Elrod argued that A-Legal violated the contract because they did not perform the work they requested at A-Legal. Instead, Elrod claims that A-Legal had an outside company do their work; furthermore, the work delivered was not completed as agreed upon. While at trial A-Legal claimed damages for the bill that was unpaid and Elrod claimed damages from lost revenue and lost business opportunity due to A-Legal’s breach. The trial court ruled in favor of Elrod and awarded $20,000 in damages and $60,000 in attorney’s fees. Before a written judgment was rendered, Elrod filed a motion to re-open evidence under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270. The motion was granted and the trial court rendered a written judgment, almost three months later, in favor of Elrod.
The claimant, Jennifer Bowman, lived with the defendant, William Fels, for 10 years. The house in which they resided was registered solely in Mr. Fels name. The two cohabitants’ relationship ended, Ms. Bowman “asserted a right to a beneficial interest in the property arising out of a constructive trust.” She argued that an agreement was reached between her and Mr. Fels that the property would be bought jointly. The proceedings of the case had started, and the trail was set for March 25th 2004. It so happened that upon inspection of the defendants’ trail bundle by the claimant’s solicitors a discrepancy was found. They suspected that the defendant had included cost of work carried out at his home with...
The court was in unanimous agreement of the decision. They rejected the defendant’s appeals for retrial, motion for JNOV (Judgment notwithstanding verdict), rejected their motion for remittur (reduction of punitive damages granted by jury). The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff.
The Sisters decided to appeal the assessment to the Greater Anchorage Borough. With hearing the evidence and facts from both sides, the board denied the appeal. Then the sisters appealed to the Supreme Court for a different resolution. The purpose for the appeal again was for the property being assessed allowed for exemption. The Supreme Court initially remanded the matter and with frugally going back and forth with evidence and hearing both sides. The Supreme Court decided the burden is on the Sisters to show the office space was entitled for exemption. The courts also mentioned of statutes construing the exemptions in addition to the policy of the rules for tax
Advises the borrower(s) that in the event the real estate vendor did not provide the Residential Property Disclosure or Disclaimer Statement, they have the unconditional right to rescind the contract of sale, within 5 days following receipt of this notice.
Preparation for the negotiation took around forty minutes. The contract was breached by us (Wood Crafters) and there was no supporting document. Our options were bankruptcy or selling the house. The opening offer was made by Viking. Wood Crafters could see that Viking felt that they had the power/rights which led to the distributive approach. Initially, Viking was pushing for Wood Crafters to pay the over-run, the loan and the rent but Wood Crafters pushed against it. Wood Crafters argument was that the over-run project was approved by Viking secretary, therefore, Wood Crafters offer was to file a bankruptcy which believed to be the best option at the time. By filing a bankruptcy, Viking would not be
What occurred in this case was that in a new build factory there had been inoperative flooring set and the claimants in this case lost money due to the flooring having to be reset again. In this case the claimants were in contract with the builders who laid the floor but decided not to sue them but to sue the sub contractors for their negligence because they were present when the builders and claimants were at meetings when discussing the flooring. Similarly, to the case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] the court allowed the claimants to sue the defendants for their financial
Consistently, House of Lords held that ‘tenants was entitled to equitable relief against forfeiture of the lease on the ground that the running of the six-month period was suspended during negotiations.’ Nevertheless, House of Lords refused to accept the argument, as ‘it was unsupported by consideration therefore, arguably unenforceable.’
Fraudulent misrepresentation is one of three types of misrepresentations in contract law. In order to ...