1. The Races bought a mobile home from Fleetwood Retail Corp. They had a lot in
ID: 384700 • Letter: 1
Question
1. The Races bought a mobile home from Fleetwood Retail Corp. They had a lot in mind, but Fleetwood convinced them to buy a lot from it, telling the Races that lots were scarce, others were looking, and it would be off the market, Fleetwood assured the Races it had checked with a contractor regarding the feasibility of putting the trailer on the lot. When the Races' contractor tried to get a septic permit, it was denied because the lot was too small for their trailer: it turned out to be smaller than Fleetwood represented. The Races sued for breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing. Explain why they should or should not be successful.
2. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long asher view wasn’t block. They again told her it wouldn’t be block. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an implied contract. Can an implied contract be inferred from the parties' conduct? Explain.
3. Golf-Hamel, an employee of Hastings Family Planning Services was 11 years, was asked Obstetricians & Gynecologists, P.C. (O&G) to come work for them. She accepted and agreed to start work two months later. She gave notice at hasting and got fitted for uniforms at O&G. The day before she was told not to come to work because one of the wives of an O&G owner objective to her hiring. Golf-Hamel sued for promissory estoppel. Will she be successful?why?
Explanation / Answer
1) existence of a contract;
2) that the plaintiff fulfilled all or substantially all of their responsibilities set out by the contract, or that she was excused from performing them;
3) that the defendant unfairly interfered with the plaintiff’s right to receive the benefits of the contract; and,
4) that the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s conduct.
All these are proved in the first case as the defendant misrepresented the products and plaintiff complied with all the elements set out in the above list. Therefore, the plaintiff should succeed.
2. Yes, implied contracts can be created by the conduct of the parties. An implied in-fact contract creates an obligation between the parties based on the facts of the situation. If the parties’ conduct or the circumstances suggests they had an agreement or understanding that created an obligation, then the law will find that they had an implied in-fact contract. Therefore, when her partial view was blocked, there was an implied breach of contract.
3. Promissory estoppels in a contract is when a party changes its course of dealing, either by acting or forbearing to do certain acts, based on the promise of another party, then the party which acts or forbears to do an act can sue another party for breach of contract. The promisee has to rely on the promise made by the promsor and then act or forbear to claim promissory estoppel. Yes, she will be successful.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.