Question

Reading a contract and knowing what the contents reveal is very important. In this case, was there unclarity or ambiguity by the unit owners in describing their duties to the other parties as third-parties? It is feasible to think that Koraev simply did not pay attention to the document when reading? Explain your answer. Critically thinking cases ALLAN v. Nersesova. Need a goos long answers

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

Reading a contract and knowing what the contents reveal is very important. In this case, was there unclarity or ambiguity by the unit owners in describing their duties to the other parties as third-parties? It is feasible to think that Koraev simply did not pay attention to the document when reading? Explain your answer.

By reading the case Allan v. Nersesova, I found out that there was unclarity by the unit owners in describing their duties to the other parties as third-parties. I believe Koraev did not pay attention to the document when he was reading because he would have done something the first time that there was damage done to Allan’s condominium, yet damage was done eight times until Allan took matters into her own hands and sued Koraev and Nersesova, because he did not pay attention to what he was reading in the contract. Or in other terms, we may also conclude that the unit owners were vague in defining their responsibilities as third-party to other parties. I don't believe Koraev paid attention to the contract when he was reading or he should have said it the first time the harm was said to Allan's condominium, but damage was done eight more before Allan took it into his own hands and sued Koraev and Nersesova when he didn't pay attention to what he was reading in the deal.

Actual Judgement - The jury determined that Allan had sustained damages of $12,885.51 on her claims for breach of contract against Koraev and for neglect against all appellants. The jury found that Koraev and Nersesova were responsible for the damage every thirty percent and that a third party, Koraev's neighbor, was responsible for the damage by fourty percent. The jury also decided that the fair and appropriate costs of Allan's solicitor were $31,000 during prosecution and extra payments for appeals. Given the decision, Koraev moved for judgement, arguing that Allan had refused to prove the existence of a contract between her and Koraev as a matter of law.The court of trial granted the motion, making a take-nothing verdict on Allan's argument for contract violation and compensation for the solicitor. The trial court subtracted the value of the compensation from the judgments found by the jury on the negligence claim and, applying the jury's verdict of 30 percent liability, made a decision that Koraev and Nersesova were both liable to Allan for $640.65.

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****