Lowell Shoemaker, an architect, was hired by Aff- house to work on a land development project. In September Shoemaker contacted Central Missouri Professional Services about providing engineering and surveying services for the project. Central submitted a written proposal to Shoemaker in October. About a week later, Shoemaker orally agreed that Central should proceed with the work outlined in the pro- posal. When the first phase of the work was com- pleted, a bill of $5,864.00 was sent to Shoemaker. Shoemaker called Central and requested that all bills be sent directly to the owner/developer, Affhouse. When the bills were not paid, Central sued Shoe- maker and Affhouse. The trial court entered a judg- ment against Shoemaker for $5,864 and he appealed. Shoemaker acknowledged that he did not disclose the identity of the principal to Central at the time the transaction was conducted, and explained: Q. You never told Mike Bates or Central Missouri Professional Services that you were an agent for Affhouse or any other undisclosed principal? A. That’s correct. I never did. Q. Another note I wrote down was that the subject of Affhouse came up in your conversations with Mike Bates of Central Missouri Professional Services after he sent the bill to you? A. The early part of the year, yes. Shoemaker contends that since he made clear to Central that he was an architect and not the developer, there was no binding oral contract between Central and him. Decide. Please answer in the IRAC format Issue: Call of the Question Rule: Rule of Law to be applied to properly answer the question Analysis: Applying the rule of law to the facts of the problem presented Conclusion: Answer to the Issue
Lowell Shoemaker, an architect, was hired by Aff- house to work on a land development project. In September Shoemaker contacted Central Missouri Professional Services about providing engineering and surveying services for the project. Central submitted a written proposal to Shoemaker in October. About a week later, Shoemaker orally agreed that Central should proceed with the work outlined in the pro- posal. When the first phase of the work was com- pleted, a bill of $5,864.00 was sent to Shoemaker. Shoemaker called Central and requested that all bills be sent directly to the owner/developer, Affhouse. When the bills were not paid, Central sued Shoe- maker and Affhouse. The trial court entered a judg- ment against Shoemaker for $5,864 and he appealed. Shoemaker acknowledged that he did not disclose the identity of the principal to Central at the time the transaction was conducted, and explained:
Q. You never told Mike Bates or Central Missouri Professional Services that you were an agent for Affhouse or any other undisclosed principal? A. That’s correct. I never did.
Q. Another note I wrote down was that the subject of Affhouse came up in your conversations with Mike Bates of Central Missouri Professional Services after he sent the bill to you? A. The early part of the year, yes.
Shoemaker contends that since he made clear to Central that he was an architect and not the developer, there was no binding oral contract between Central and him. Decide. Please answer in the IRAC format Issue: Call of the Question
Rule: Rule of Law to be applied to properly answer the question
Analysis: Applying the rule of law to the facts of the problem presented
Conclusion: Answer to the Issue
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
