cksjhk

1513 Words7 Pages
1) When examining the case of Sam and Kelly, it is evident that the common-law couple is not legally bound by the proposed construction project. Although parties can orally agree on the terms, once a dispute commences, written contracts are the only evidence of agreement. This is shown when the two reach an oral agreement on the terms of the development but no draft or written contract is pursued and soon after Kelly decides to re-negotiate the financial aspects. While time and money has been has been spent in the beginning of this agreement when both parties approved, Kelly has no obligation in reinstating Sam in her change of mind. In the absence of a contract, their strict legal rights consist of claim rights and moral rights. 2) Two main streams in private law obligations arise when talking about unjust enrichment and conscience. Primarily, the common-law stream deals with individual rights and their enforcement. For example, mistake, duress, and waiver of tort. The Queen’s Bench also looks at ineffective transactions and necessary pardon of another’s liability. The second steam, equity, is similar to the first with a couple differences. It still deals with mistaken payments but also adds the fiduciary duty that is breached from one person to another. This stream focuses on the contribution of matrimonial property for not only married couples, but those of common law relationships as well. It helps with aspects of the relationship when a party has breached trust and also with the division of the property. In these situations, unjust enrichment has been the “primary vehicle” to examine the distribution of assets. In the case of Kelly and Sam, judges would view their relationship as domestic rather than commercial since it... ... middle of paper ... ...ble since there was no binding contract that would make it commercial. The essence of their relationship and business relied solely on the trust aspect between the two parties. In my opinion, I don’t believe that should be a deciding factor on whether unjust enrichment occurred since married couples can go into business relations with one another. Regardless of the relationship, trust and loyalty should be a necessity. 7) Overall I see that there is a private law obligation in this scenario. Kelly could have initially altered Sam’s whole life when she told him that they were a long term team in this development but soon thereafter changed the components of their agreement and abandoned him. As previously mentioned, monetary award is deemed proper in this situation since he invested his time and effort while lacking the opportunity to make money at a different job.

    More about cksjhk

      Open Document