Joined: 31 Jan 2005
|Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:53 pm Post subject: Answers to your self-test.
|What you should do:
Do NOT look at my answers before you prepare the answers. This is an exercise in self testing and will only do you the maximum good if you actually pretend you are taking an exam!!! It’s purpose is to help you get ready for Test Number Two.
Prepare an answer to each of these hypotheticals:
Then go to the next entry, wherein you will find my answers. Compare what you wrote with what I wrote. And also, learn some law!!!!!!!!
The sole issue here: Was Robert Lucas a 3rd. Party Beneficiary of Emmic’s will?
Rule & Analyis: If the contract is intended to benefit a 3rd. party, and that party is named in the contract (a will is a legal contract.) then the party is considered a 3rd. party intended done beneficiary: (Conclusion) as such Lucas can sue Ham directly.
Just the law on this one: This contract is a special case when the owner and the contractor build a house/condo or other structure with owner’s plan to sell the units then each of the ORIGINAL purchasers is 3rd. party intended creditor beneficiary with all rights to sue the contractor. Subsequent purchasers have no right to sue, as they are not considered as intended beneficiaries.
This is a sad case: Einhorn was not in privity with either the owner nor the locksmith. She was just a “visitor” to the building. Is she a beneficiary of the contract (if the locks had been installed correctly and therefore the rapist would not have been able to enter the building.) Yes she is, but she is a 3rd. party incidental beneficiary. The Courts have held in this type of case that the plaintiff is: in the wrong place at the wrong time!
Here the answer is simple: The contract was not assigned. There was a sale. And Cunningham was not an assignee. He didn’t have any right not to play for the new owners. Now, if any new duties were given him, i.e. he had to sell programs/paraphernalia during half time then the contract would violate the rule: that the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor, i.e. no more and no less!!
My favorite case. And an easy solution. Jones tried to assign the rights of his interest in the contract to his friend Brudek. Brudek did nothing illegal, therefore you cannot argue that the answer is based on the fact that you can’t sue on an illegal contract. Again, it’s based on assignment rules: Jones could not recover his “bribe” money, because it’s an illegal contract. Therefore he can only assign what he had, which was an illegal contract. Brubek takes from his assignor whatever his assignor had and his assignor had nothing of legal value to assign. Brubek gets no more no less. He also stands in the shoes of his assignor. However, he doesn’t have to go to jail, as he did nothing wrong.
A very special rule here, and it only concerns commercial real property. If the owner/landlord inserts a clause regarding prior approval of a lease assignment and it is shown that the approval is being refused capriciously (without any good legal reason) then the Court will not allow the restriction on the assignment to stand. They will allow the assignment and disregard the clause.
The rule here: If a defendant prevents someone from complying with a condition precedent then the defendant, cannot rely on the condition precedent to get out of the contract.