You are on page 1of 5


Real Property The Briggs vs. Sackett case deals with the legal principle of written contracts

involving real property. As stated in our textbook, under the Statute of Frauds, any contract that transfers an ownership interest in real property must be in writing to be enforceable (Cheeseman, 2010). An exception to this statute of frauds is part performance, which rules that if part of the purchase price has been paid, no written evidence is needed. In this case Robert Briggs and his wife entered into an oral contract to sell the house to Winfield and Emma Sackett if the Sacketts would pay the three months arrearages on the loan and agree to make the future payments on the mortgage. The Sacketts paid the arrearages, moved into the house, and continued to live there. Fifteen years later the Briggs filed a lawsuit seeking to evict the Sacketts from the house and the Sackets filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce the terms of their oral contract.

Apart from the Briggs being unethical and trying to evict the Sacketts, the Sacketts should definitely win this case. Even though there was an unenforceable oral agreement for real property, it becomes enforceable because the Sacketts paid part of the purchase price by agreeing to pay the arrearages and all future payments on the mortgage.

16.10 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations The Pacific Gas and Electric Company vs. Bear Stearns & Company case deals with the legal principle of Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. As stated

in our textbook, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, is when a party to a contract may sue any third person who intentionally interferes with the contract and causes that party injury (Cheeseman, 2010). In this case, as per the book, Bear Stearns to assist Agency in an effort to terminate the power contract with PG & E in exchange for a share of Agencys subsequent profits and the right to underwrite any new securities issued by Agency. Bear Stearns also agreed to pay the legal fees incurred by Agency in litigation concerning the attempt to get out of the PG & E contract.

PG & E should win this case. The reason being that all three elements of the tort were satisfied:

1. A valid, enforceable contract between Agency and PG & E 2. Bear Stearns knowing about the contract 3. Bear Stearns induces to breach the contract in exchange for compensation and legal fees incurred


Good or Service The Gulash vs. Stylarama case deals with the legal principle of a mixed sale,

goods versus service. As stated in the book, sometimes a sale involves both the provision of a service and a good in the same transaction. This sale is referred to as a mixed sale. Article 2 applies to mixed sales only if the goods are the predominant part of the transaction. Whether the sale of goods is the predominant part of a mixed sale is decided by courts on a case-by-case basis (Cheeseman, 2010). According to the book, the two parties entered into a contract that called for Stylarama to furnish all labor

and materials to construct a Wavecrest brand pool, and furnish and install a pool with vinyl liners. There was no breakdown in the contract of costs between labor and materials. After the pool was installed, its sides began bowing out, the 2 4 wooden supports for the pool rotted and misaligned, and the entire pool became tilted. Gulash brought suit, alleging that Stylarama had violated several provisions of Article 2 of the UCC (Cheeseman, 2010).

Gulash should definitely win this case. The fact that the different costs for labor and materials were not itemized in the contract implies warranty of both goods and service. Also the goods failing are the predominant argument for breach of the defendant's implied warranty of merchantability.


Revocation of Acceptance The International Paper Co. vs. Farrar case deals with the legal principle of

Revocation of Acceptance. As stated in our textbook, Revocation of Acceptance, is when a buyer or lessee who has accepted goods may subsequently revoke his or her acceptance if (1) the goods are nonconforming, (2) the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer or lessee, and (3) one of the following factors is shown: (a) the sellers or lessors promise to timely cure of the nonconformity is not met, (b) the goods were accepted before the nonconformity was discovered and the nonconformity was difficult to discover, or (c) the goods were accepted before the nonconformity was discovered and the seller or lessor assured the buyer or lessee that the goods were conforming (Cheeseman, 2010). In this case, Farrar ordered 21,500

tomato boxes from International. As per the text in the problem, when the boxes arrived at Farrars plant, 3,624 of them were immediately used to pack tomatoes. When the boxes were stacked, they began to collapse and crush the tomatoes contained within them. The produce company was forced to repackage the tomatoes and store the unused tomato boxes. Farrar contacted International and informed it that it no longer wanted the boxes because they could not perform as promised. International claimed that Farrar had accepted the packages and must pay for them.

Farrar surely should win this case on the basis that Farrar notified International as soon as he was aware that the boxes were not conforming, the nonconformity of the boxes substantially impairs the value of Farrars tomatoes, and the boxes were accepted before nonconformity of the boxes was discovered and the nonconformity of the boxes was difficult to discover.


Cheeseman, Henry R. (2010). BUSINESS LAW: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions