Question

Jon D'Man grew up in a small town in eastern Oregon. Jon played sports and was good

enough to earn a scholarship in baseball to his favorite university in Utah. Marsha Mello grew up in

New York City, as a

Manhattenite. Although growing up in New York had its advantages, she

longed to see the wide open spaces of the western United States, and she applied to the same

university in Utah that Jon was attending. Marsha was a big fan of baseball and loved attendi

ng

games to support her school. She fell in love with the star player, Jon.

One fateful game Jon was sliding into third and caught a spike and tore the ligaments in his

knee and ankle. This accident ended his professional dreams at the young age of 17. Jon

and Marsha

decided they would get married in four (4) years when they graduated. Jon had a settlement from his

injury and a good

-

paying, part

-

time job. Marsha had a large inheritance from her grandmother, to be

used only for educational related expenses.

They decided to buy a home together even though Jon

was only 17 and Marsha was 21. But they wondered what they needed to do to buy a home.

Jon and Marsha were both accounting students and were taking a wonderful Business Law

class together from a wonderful

professor

-

the same one you now have. They had a limited

knowledge of contracts, but they knew they should employ a Real Estate Agent to facilitate their

purchase. They called a local hot

-

shot realtor to help them find the perfect property to start their l

ife

together. After much searching, they found a 3 bedroom 2 bath home on a nice cul

-

de

-

s8c in a

quiet, newer neighborhood on the outskirts of town.

They sat down with their Agent to fill out their offer to purchase on a Utah Real Estate

Purchase Contract

(REPC). They discussed the home and its amenities. They loved the fact that the

home had an outdoor, portable hot tub under the stars. It could be easily moved under cover into

the carport in bad weather. They also loved the appliances that were in the kit

chen. They

particularly loved the 6

-

burner, Maytag gas range. They decided to ask for them to be included in

the purchase price. The home was listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for which seemed to

be a little high for the neighborhood. Jon and Ma

rsha decided to offer $207,000 with the seller

paying 3% towards closing costs and for title insurance and for property taxes and for needed

repairs.

Jon signed the REPC on the line for the Buyer (see Page. 6). In paragraph 25 of the REPC,

Jon put the time

for acceptance as 12 PM, 25 February 2011.

The REPC said on P.l that the BUYER had included a post

-

dated check for $5,000. The

broker marked the box “delivered” even though Marsha did not have her check book with her. She

promised the agent that she would

bring it to him ASAP.

Buyer’s Broker delivered the REPC to Seller's Broker, through a sales agent on the day after

the REPC was completed by Jon and Marsha.

Jon and Marsha had specifically marked the applicable boxes on page #1, Paragraph 1.2 for

the wash

er; the dryer; the frig; the water softener; and the security system. They also marked the

required boxes throughout the REPC.

NOTE #1 TO STUDENTS

You will want to read the REPC and the two addenda and ask questions as the different

sections of the REPC ar

e covered in the related chapters of the text book.

Seller received the offer on the 21 February 2011.

Seller marked, I accept with the following conditions. Buyers' will have one (2) day to accept

terms contained in Addendum #1.

See ADDENDUM #1:

Seller

returned REPC with Addendum #1 to Buyer's Broker.

Jon marked, I accept on Addendum #1 with the following conditions.

See ADDENDUM

#2

Jon had his acceptance notarized the next day and gave it to his Broker, who gave it to the

Seller's Broker. Seller's Broke

r got busy and distracted, and he forgot to give it to the Seller until 10

AM. Broker reminded Seller that she only had until 12 AM to respond. Seller said that

was

ok, because she would put it in the mail by 11 PM, and that would be the time of acceptance.

(She knew the mailbox rule) She mailed the acceptance at 10:15 PM. She immediately had seller's

remorse and changed her mind. She called the Buyer at 12:30 AM and

said on her answering

machine, “I reject your offer. The deal is off. I will not sell my home at any price.” The BUYERS

had not yet received SELLER'S acceptance.

Right after Buyers had mailed their last offer to Seller, but before seller had mailed an

ac

ceptance (see addendum #2), UB Flash announced it was building just down the road from

Seller's house. Because of this announcement, the value of the Seller's house jumped $100 K.

Marsha heard about UB Flash's plans and quickly called Seiler's Broker on th

e phone and told him

that she would like to accepted seller's offer on seller's terms (see Addendum #1). She told Seller's

Broker she could close by 15 April 2011. Seller's Broker was way excited to make a sale. And

without contacting seller, Seller's Brok

er told Buyer, “I accept your offer. You have just bought

yourselves a house.” Marsha said, “Fantastic. I’ve got all the money for the house in a trust.”

That same day, Buyer #2 who is an undisclosed agent for UB Flash, offers the Seiler over

the phone $30

0K cash with no conditions, as is, close in 10 days. Buyer #2 promises a $20,000 non

-

refundable earnest money with the oral offer. Seller does not know of her Agents actions with

Marsha; therefore, she, the Seller, promises to sign the REPC as soon as buye

r #2 mails it to her.

She tells buyer #2, “I accept with no reservations or conditions.”

Jon learns of seller's intent to sell to Buyer #2 and sues to enforce his rights under his REPC

1.Is there a contract between any of the parties? If there is a contract(s), describe and detail the operative legal principles, how you arrived at that conclusion, and identify the parties to that contract and the contract’s terms.

2.There were several purportedly contractual negotiations or transitions in the case description. If you decided that some of those transactions do not qualify as a contract, detail and describe why.

3.Identify any defenses to enforcement that any of the parties may have and against whom they would be asserted, and whether those defenses would be successful and why.

4.Identify the available remedies that any party could request of a court, and whether a court is able or likely to provide that remedy and why.

5.Describe how the concept of agencyeffected the parties’ legal positions in the case study. Did the agents help or harm their clients? Why?

6.If you were the judge on this case and all the parties named in the case description were party to the lawsuit, how would you resolve the case and why? Who would end up with the property and on what terms? Who would get nothing and why?

Answer 1

Answer1:

A. there's a contract between the 2 pares. The contract that's being distributed is that the rest supplement that the vendor sent to the patrons. This can be a legitimate contract between the 2 parties due to the acceptance from the seller’s agent before Maine of her acceptance of the second supplement. per the REPC in sec on 23, “Acceptance” happens once all of the subsequent have occurred: (a) merchant or purchaser has signed the o1er or counter over were noted to point acceptance, and (b) merchant or purchaser or their agent has communicated to the opposite party or to the opposite party’s agent that the over or counter over has been signed PRN. Before the vendor had sent in her counter over (Addendum #2), or maybe communicated with the second purchaser, each of those 2 needs for acceptance occurred. The vendor indicated she would sell the house if the wants in supplement #1 were met. Seller’s agent accepted thiso1er on behalf of the vendor. Thus, there's a legitimate contract and its supplement #1. thus with this contract being valid, the vendor should sell the house at the value of $220,000 to the patrons with the listed terms incorporated as a part of the important Estate purchase agreement like the water so7ener and security systems area unit rented, a spread is going to be enclosed, media on is also obligatory, merchant pays a liquid ecstasy of $3000 in concessions, and also the house is going to be sold-out “as is” with no assurance in the least.

Answer2:

A. the remainder supposedly is written agreement negotiation and on I'd prefer to describe that wasn’t valid was the vendor revoking her acceptance of supplement two. The mailbox rule clearly states that acceptance of associate degree over is e1ecve as presently because the acceptance is shipped. When putting the letter within the mailbox, she might not revoke the supplement as a result of she had already accepted. the solely written agreement spatula thereon might destroy my ruling is that supplement one will s roof of the mouth that there's a 24-hour Maine amount during which the patrons were to retort to the supplement, either or accretive or countering. This might have presumably voided supplement one. And associate degree argument might even be created that supplement one is void as a result of the vendor all over up agreeing to supplement two, and a countero1er overpowers the first over, or during this case, the previous over.

Answer3:

A. I believe that the simplest defense for the social control of the contract against the vendor would is impact ability. It merely impacts cable to sell a property for $200,000 once it’s value $300,000 in its current condition. That may be infeasible for the vendor to paternally lose $100,000. That may seem to be a prey unfair contract to be “trapped” in and would be “painful” for the courts to enforce upon someone.

Answer4:

A. There area unit many remedies for the parties: mediation, arbitrary on, and negotiation. Mediation, for starters, maybe a method wherever the parties meet with associate degree impartial one who helps to resolve the dispute informally and con dentally. Here, they will discuss the benefits and drawbacks and might tend to human problems. Each pares would wish to conform to these; parts for it to be binding. Considering this can be written into the important Estate purchase agreement, this may be an excellent answer that may all pronto be needed of the patrons and sellers to try to. They may presumably enter arbitration wherever a 3rd partial or impartial person is acting sort of a choice to the mailer. Once the case is given to the arbiter, the arbiter determines the ruling. This can be sell brew than proceeding on as a result of its personal, less costly, and faster within the method of the ruling. The last remedy I'd counsel is an easy negotiation. The vendor might merely speak with the patrons and raise, “What will we tend to do to resolve the issue?” This doesn’t involve a third-party, and is out and away from the only – it simply has each parietal really discuss things on at hand. These remedies would facilitate avoid costly proceedings or a minimum of circumventing several elements of it. This might result in a mutual agreement to discharge the contract fully.

Answer5:

For my ruling of that contract was valid, the agency vies the foremost necessary role. As a result of a treehouse, the agent is permitted to act on behalf of the principal, per the important Estate purchase agreement, it puts the constant quantity of power a purchaser or merchant has into their hands. This causes my ruling that supplement #1 be valid as a result of the seller’s agent accepted this supplement from the patrons, on behalf of the vendor he was representing. Agency created is so each pares can be strictly painted by their agent, giving them the correct to acceptance. The agent for the vendor, did obvious injury, by accretive the o1er supplement #1 while not informing his merchant, he condemned the vendor.

Answer6:

I would resolve the case by declaring that the property would become the buyers’, winding up supplement #1. The seller’s need to sell the property to purchaser #2 is extraneous as a result of her agent had accepted supplement #1, and she or he had additionally tried to simply accept supplement #2 – thus in no manner, is that the merchant progressing to be commercialism to purchaser #2. The terms would be as delineated in supplement #1. Purchaser #2 would find you with nothing as a result of there were already a binding contract to sell the house to the remainder patrons before she even accepted the o1er from purchaser #2. The 2 would have had a contract had there not one been in situ already, taking the thought o1 the table for purchaser #2.