393224818 - Business Law Homework 4. Revised
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Business & Industry Services *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
629
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by Derick254
1
Business Law Homework 4
Student’s Name
Institution Full Name
Course Code
Instructor Full Name
Due Date
2
Business Law Homework 4
Binding Versus Persuasive Authority.
In this case, the Illinois court is not obligated to follow the Lowa Supreme Court decision
on the same issue even though the issue has never been addressed in that state's court. Illinois
court should not follow the Lowa supreme court's judgement because the judge has to follow
precedent established in their jurisdiction, and the two courts have different jurisdictions. If the
United States Supreme Court had decided on a similar case, the decision would bind Illinois
court. Illinois court would follow a similar judgement by the United States supreme court. It is
the highest court in the United States of America, and its decision bides all lower courts.
Consideration.
The elderly can hold Fred liable in the contract for the service rendered to Daniel for the
breach of contract. The argument is based on the contract's validity, whereby there was
consideration between the parties. The elderly provides Daniel with food and shelter; in return,
Fred promises to pay them $500. In return to the promise given in consideration the couple
accepted the offer. The elderly couple can rely on their detriment of foregoing other opportunities
to make Fred liable. The doctrine of promissory estoppel in the law of contract would also come
to play to ensure that the elderly get compensated by Fred.
Liquidity Damage.
In the case of Ned and Homer, Ned was correct to retain the deposit of Homer, $10,000,
as liquidated damages. Because the terms of the contract stipulate that if the buyer, Homer,
breaches the contract, Ned will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. The damages are
predetermined to provide certainty to avoid disputes over the damages suffered.
3
Alternative considering the price Ned sell the house to Moe at $105,000, the price is
higher than what was initially agreed upon an indicator that he did not incurred any loss.
Retaining $10,000 may then be considered excessive and not reasonable to the harm suffered by
Ned. The liquidated damage clause that existed should be reviewed to ensure that it creates
fairness and do not affect either parties negatively. The ground that can make the clause not
enforceable and ensure that Homer get it 10% is that Ned has adequate remedies and the
damages was unreasonable.
Ratification by Principal.
In the case of Elaine and Kramer's printing company, Kramer is correct to argue that the
use of campaign material by Elaine constitutes ratification. Because ratification occurs if one
accepts the benefit of a transaction done by an unauthorized person on their behalf, just like in
Elaine's case, making her liable. Even if Elaine did not use the campaign material, she is liable
for their purchase. Elaine is would be liable because she uses the campaign materials that were
unauthorized purchased on her behalf by her agent as an affirmation of the transaction. Her
actions, in this case, are viewed as implied consent on her part hence making her liable for the
purchase of the materials. In case Elaine did not use the material she would still be liable to pay
Kramer. The reason is that the agent work on her behalf as the principal to produce the material,
hence obligated to pay for the purchase.
Landlord’s Responsibilities
Frank, the landlord of the house, is responsible for repairing the roof. The responsibility
is based on the landlord-tenant relationship, which creates the implied warranty of in habitability,
that is, maintaining lease premises in a habitable condition to keep the property in a reasonable
state of repair for tenant. The warranty of habitation ensures that the property is has fitness for
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
habitation, meet the standards of safety, comply with building codes, absence of hazardous
materials, and functions well. Therefore, Sarah has the following remedies in this case: withhold
the rent until proper legal procedures make Frank repairs. Sarah also has the remedy to terminate
the lease agreement without penalty because Frank has breached the implied warranty of
habitability. The other remedy for Sarah is seeking a lawsuit against Frank for damages from
leaking roofs.
5
Reference
Spring 2023. Business Law Notes. ppt