HW #4 LGLS
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Temple University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5701
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by carlydphie
12–1. UNILATERAL CONTRACT.
Rocky Mountain Races, Inc., sponsors the “Pioneer Trail Ultramarathon,” with an advertised first prize
of $10,000. The rules require the competitors to run one hundred miles from the floor of Blackwater Canyon to the top of Pinnacle Mountain. The rules also provide that Rocky reserves the right to change the terms
of the race at any time. Monica enters the race and is declared the winner. Rocky offers her a prize of $1,000 instead of $10,000. Did Rocky and Monica have a contract? Explain. (See
An Overview of Contract Law
.)
Rocky Mountains Races, Inc and Monica had a contract. As a matter of fact, they had a unilateral contract. There was a competition sponsored by Rocky Mountain Races, Inc., the “Pioneer Trail Ultramarathon”, in which competitors had to run one hundred miles from the floor of Blackwater Canyon to the top of Pinnacle Mountain. As advertised, the winner would get a prize of $10,000. However, because it was written in
the rules, Rocky was able to change of the terms of the race at any time. As a result of this, the winner, Monica, won $1,000 instead of $10,000. Monica entered the competition with knowledge of a prize. She
completed the act of running one hundred miles; therefore, she accepted and held up her end in the unilateral contract. Since Rocky reserved the right to change the rules of the race, Monica is not permitted to the prize of $10,000. She is entitled to whatever reward Rocky chooses.
12–2. PREEXISTING DUTY.
Tabor is a buyer of file cabinets manufactured by Martin. Martin’s contract with Tabor calls for delivery of fifty file cabinets at $40
per cabinet in five equal installments. After delivery of two installments (twenty
cabinets), Martin informs Tabor that because of inflation, Martin is losing money. Martin will promise to deliver the remaining thirty cabinets only if Tabor will pay $50 per cabinet. Tabor agrees in writing to do so. Discuss whether Martin can legally collect the additional $100 on delivery to Tabor of the next installment of ten cabinets. (See
Consideration
.)
Martin cannot legally collect the additional $100 on delivery to Tabor of the next installment of ten cabinets. In the contract, it states that Tabor will receive
a delivery of fifty file cabinets at $40 per cabinet in five equal installments. Martin tells Tabor that after the delivery of the two installments, Tabor has to pay $50 per cabinet because of inflation. However, Martin has the pre-existing
duty to provide the cabinets to Tabor. There should be no new consideration because Martin originally promised Tabor that he had to pay $40 per cabinet. If Martin had added an inflation clause in the contract earlier, than Tabor would have to pay the additional $100; however, an inflation clause was not added, and inflation can’t be enforceable in this case.
12–4. ACCEPTANCE.
Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Inc., is a global corporation that provides real property owners with a variety of services, including property preservation—repairs, debris removal, and so on. Lucas Contracting,
Inc., is a small trade contractor in Carrollton, Ohio. On behalf of Altisource, Berghorst Enterprises, LLC, hired Lucas to perform preservation work on certain foreclosed properties in eastern Ohio. When Berghorst did not pay for the work, Lucas filed a suit in an Ohio state court against Altisource. Before the trial, Lucas e-mailed the terms of a settlement. The same day, Altisource e-mailed a response that did not challenge or contradict Lucas’s proposal and indicated agreement to it. Two days later, however, Altisource forwarded a settlement document that contained additional terms. Which proposal most likely satisfies the element of agreement to establish a contract? Explain. [
Lucas Contracting, Inc. v. Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Inc.
, 2016 -Ohio- 474
(5 Dist. 2016)] (See
Agreement
.)
Lucas’ first e-mail proposal most likely satisfies the element of agreement to establish a contract. Lucas was hired by Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Inc. to “perform preservation work on the certain foreclosed properties in eastern Ohio”. However, Lucas filed a suit against Altisource in Ohio when Berghorst did not pay for the work. Following Lucas’ first e-mail, Altisource responded to him and did not challenge of contradict his proposal. As a matter of fact, Altisource agreed to it. Therefore, mutual assent was established between Lucas and Altisource, creating a valid contract.
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
12–8. CONTRACTS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.
P.M. and C.M. (the “Ms”) are married and live in Iowa. Unable to conceive their own child, they signed a
contract with T.B., who, in exchange for $13,000 and medical expenses, agreed to be impregnated with embryos fertilized with P.M.’s sperm and the ova of an anonymous donor. T.B. agreed to carry the pregnancy to term, and she and her spouse, D.B., (the “Bs”) promised to hand over the baby at birth to the Ms. During the pregnancy, the relations between the parties deteriorated. When the baby was born, T.B. refused to honor the agreement to give up the child. Meanwhile, genetic testing excluded T.B. and D.B. as the biological parents and established P.M. as the father. Iowa exempts “surrogacy” from a state criminal statute that prohibits selling babies. There is no other state law on point. Is the contract between the Ms and the Bs enforceable? Discuss. [
P.M. v. T.B.
, 907 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2018)] (See
Legality
.)
The contract between the Ms and the Bs is enforceable. The Ms paid $13,000
to the Bs in medical expenses for T.B. to be impregnated with embryos fertilized with P.M.’s sperm and the ova of an anonymous donor because the Ms were unable to conceive their own child. The Bs promised to give the baby
to the Ms once birthed. However, T.B. refused to hand the baby over when it was born even though P.M. is established as the father. Iowa terminated the parental rights of the surrogate parents, so the contract between the Ms and the Bs is enforceable. P.M., as well as C.M., are able to gain custody of the baby.