Royclaims the whole property after Ruth sold her share to her. Ruth’ssister died and she owned the house with her. Under the rule ofsurvivorship when a co-owner of a property dies, the other co-ownertakes legal possession of the property (Eddington, 2014). Therefore,Roy can claim survivorship on behalf of the Ruth who sold her rightsto her.
Inthis case, Joan sued her ex-husband Murray for the gifts given to hersons by their father and later withdrawn by the grandfather who hadgiven the money to Murray. The Uniform Gift to Minors Act requiresthe custodians to deal with the gifts on behalf of the beneficiary(Eddington, 2014). However, the transfer is irrevocable. BecauseMurray was the custodian, he had the right to use the money on behalfof the children, but it was returned to the grandfather. This iswrong because the custodian had all the right over it – it wasirrevocable.
Richardopened an account jointly with her mother before marrying. Aftermarrying and later dying, his wife claims a share to his passbook.New York’s banking laws provides a presumption of joint tenancy.Survivorship law states that when a person dies, his or her share oftenancy passes to the survivor. Therefore, upon Richard’s death thepassbook goes to her mother.
Schroeder’scar parked in the premises of Allright, Inc. The owner claims fordamages. The law on negligence states that people should pay fordamages if they act negligently (Vetter, 1999). However, some clausesmay be provided to limit liability, but all parties should be madeaware of the liability. The clause limiting liability in the parkingstub was written in small letters and Allright did not make Schroederaware of the liability clause. So Schroeder had right to sue fordamages/
RichardSchewe and others are suing for damages after their property wasburned by fire in the premises of Winnebago County Fair Association,Inc. An agreement limiting liability had been signed by the twoparties. The uniform commercial code states that warehousemen shouldnot make contracts that exempt them from liability caused bynegligence. However, the cause of fire is not stated, and theplaintiffs fail to show how the defendant acted negligently. So thecase should be dismissed.
Strotokowskysues International Parcel Service for $2,000. This is the retailprice of his parcel that got lost. Under contract law, any party cansue for damages from the other party if he or she breaches thecontract. There was an implied contract of delivering the parcel,whose price or consideration was paid. The IPS should pay a value of$500 which was declared by Strotokowsky, not $100 which is paid ifthere was no value declared according to receipt.
Garrettsleft their car in St. louis Airport North Holiday Inn, relying on thecompany’s Park and Fly package which allows them to leave their carin the Hotel’s parking area for up to 2 weeks. There was an impliedduty of care because the hotel knew. In the contract, the hotel hadduty of care over the car. So Garrettes had the right to sue fordamages.
Lascodealers changed the price of their goods after Smythe showedintention to buy. The initial price of $400 was an offer to salebecause it was given specifically to him and signed by the manager ofthe store. The contract would materialize upon acceptance by Freezer.Therefore, Freezer is correct when she says that the price would notbe changed because a contract was made upon acceptance, and changingprice would be a breach of the contract.
ValleyTrout Farms ordered food and it was sent to them alongside an invoicethat stated that an additional charge would be provided for latepayment. The merchants did not pay for the food. The law of contractsuggests that implied acceptance is valid. When the Valley TroutFarms used the food, they were implying that they accepted the termsof the contract, including the additional payment. Therefore, ValleyTrout Farms is not true to say that they were not required to pay forthe charge.
Theletter sent by Fastner Corp to Renzo Box C.o. was signed by the salesmanager. It stated that the offer provided is irrevocable for tendays, but it was revoked in 5 days. There was no acceptance of theoffer from Renzo because he did not reply to Fastner. According tocontract law, a contract is valid if there is a n acceptance to theoffer. There was no contract in this case because Renzo did notaccept either through direct or implied means. Silence is notacceptance. Therefore, Fastner could revoke.
Eddington,G. (2014). Survivorship Rights in Joint Bank Accounts: A MisbegottenPresumption of Intent. MarquetteElder’s Advisor,15(2), 175-228.
Vetter,W.V. (1999). The Parking Lot Cases Revisited: Confusion at or Aboutthe Gate. SantaClara Law Review,40(1), 27-64.