1. Implied Contract 2. It's a verbal contract that should be upheld but can't be altered Would your answers change if John decided to cancel the wedding? 3. Jane should give the ring back since they are not yet married. She should call and cancel services they hired as well as pay for "un-take-back-able" things. If John canceled, he should get the ring, but pay the missing expenses.
The older gentleman will likely win because he has a genuine contract. The younger man agreed that the other party was being honest and seems to be telling falsehoods as well.
1. An implied contract 2. No because they did not have a written agreement that they were going to go to the movies. 3. She does not have to give the ring back due to the ring being given to her. But it would be morally right for her to return the ring due to them not being married. Expenses should be split among the two due to both of them being involved in he wedding. The circumstances should be the same if John were the one to back out.
1. The contract is not legally enforceable because there is no written document stating that Forkin would allow Kelly to sell the ATV. 2. The court should favor in defense of Forkin due to Kelly's negligence in getting the ATV impounded and his phony information saying that it was impounded in 10 minutes.
1. A visual contract 2. No, because it is not a legal purpose. 3. She does because John bought the ring for her so it is rightfully his. She should be responsible for the money lost in the canceling of the wedding.
All of the 5 elements are there for it to be a legally enforceable contract for the defendant to sell it. I believe that the plaintiff will win because the defendant stated that everything the plaintiff said was true and he left the ATV in the middle of the road, unattended when he was responsible for selling it. Since he got it taken away from him, he should be responsible to pay the plaintiff back.
1. implied contract 2. No because this type of social agreement does not break any form of contract. Just because the two agreed and bought items for this set date, that either one of them should have to pay the other. 3. She should give the ring back.
There is a legal contract based on the evidence because it was a verbal contract. And based on the evidence heard, the government could have not reached the quad in 10 minutes, selling the quad was Kelly's responsibility and the quad was impounded. The plaintiff will win the case.
1. Implied Contract 2.no there just friends its a causal date they dont need to go to court 3. Jane should give the ring back since they are not yet married If John canceled, he should get the ring, but pay the missing expenses.
1. Implied Contract 2. No, it's not in writing and it was not for a legal purpose, so it is not enforceable. 3. Maybe, since it could be said that the ring was only a gift. If it was agreed upon that it was not a gift, then she must give it back.
The plaintiff will win the case, since the contract was legally enforceable, and the defendant is most likely lying. There is no way the government could have reached the ATV in 10 minutes, and he has no proof that the vehicle was impounded, so he has no evidence to support his claim.
1. Implied Contract 2. its not an illegal purpose so the court does not get involved. 3. She should give the ring back and cancel other arrangements that they made but if John canceled it than he should cancel the arrangements and pay for the missing expenses and if he gave her the ring on a holiday or any other special ring then he can't get the ring back but if he didn't then he can get it back.
In this case i think that the guy with the beard is going to win because they do have offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity to contract, genuine agreement and a legal purpose. They have all of the following and the defendant isn't giving efficient information about what time he came to get the vehicle and don't seem to be all that clear in what he is trying to say
1. JJ just formed an implied contract. It is based on what happens every single day. 2. It is not a legal purpose and cannot involve any legal actions. 3. Maybe, because it is the law to give the ring back based on marital purposes. If it was on a holiday, the ring can be kept.
In this court case, the partially white-mustached guy claims that the other guy has violated a legally enforceable verbal contract. The quad being impounded was Kelly's responsibility and the unlikeliness of a government quad arriving in 10 minutes flat.
The plaintiff will win because it is a legally bound contract. The contract had an offer and an acceptance, it was a genuine agreement, he had permission from his son to sell the atv's, and he did not need it in writing for this agreement. It was in the verbal contract that the defendant will sell the atv and not keep it for him self. He owes the plaintiff the atv or the two-thousand he wanted it to sell for.
1.) Visual because he saw him and gave him a nod. 2.) No, because there is nothing in writing 3.) she can keep the ring if she wants to since he is the one who broke the contract.
I think that the plaintiff will not get as much as he wants back because there was not legal contract, just a verbal agreement and who he gave it to he trusted to sell it and should not have. Now that the quad is gone he cannot get his money back from it anyway because he never had a legal contract on how much to sell it for, the plaintiff may win but not as much money as he may like.
1.) Implied Contract 2.) No because that's a personal confrontational not a legal one. 3.)Depends on the day. She can keep the ring if she wants to since he is the one who broke the contract.
1. Implied contract 2. It's not a legal purpose 3. If he breaks off the wedding, she is allowed to keep the ring. If she breaks off the wedding, she has to give it back.
There was no written agreement on what they decided to do. The judge might rule in favor of Forkin because Kelly isn't telling the truth about where the quad is and he hasn't paid Forkin the $2000 he was suppose to get for selling it , which he didnt do.
1. The contract is not legally enforceable because there is no written document stating that Forkin would allow Kelly to sell the ATV. 2. The court should favor in defense of Forkin due to Kelly's negligence in getting the ATV impounded and his phony information saying that it was impounded in 10 minutes.
TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Two inmates are suing the Twin Falls County jail saying they have not received adequate mental health care.English said he was denied his psychiatric medication for three months and placed in solitary confinement when staff mistakenly believed he was suicidal. He said Preal was put in solitary and at one point made to strip naked because jail staff believed he was suicidal. http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/8e85dbcfaf4147b1e9c3b6da60457d52
1.) Implied Contract 2.) No because that's a personal confrontational not a legal one. 3.)Depends on the day. She can keep the ring if she wants to since he is the one who broke the contract.
1. Implied Contract
ReplyDelete2. It's a verbal contract that should be upheld but can't be altered
Would your answers change if John decided to cancel the wedding?
3. Jane should give the ring back since they are not yet married. She should call and cancel services they hired as well as pay for "un-take-back-able" things. If John canceled, he should get the ring, but pay the missing expenses.
*not for legal purposes, cant go to court
DeleteThe older gentleman will likely win because he has a genuine contract. The younger man agreed that the other party was being honest and seems to be telling falsehoods as well.
Delete1. An implied contract
ReplyDelete2. No because they did not have a written agreement that they were going to go to the movies.
3. She does not have to give the ring back due to the ring being given to her. But it would be morally right for her to return the ring due to them not being married. Expenses should be split among the two due to both of them being involved in he wedding. The circumstances should be the same if John were the one to back out.
1. The contract is not legally enforceable because there is no written document stating that Forkin would allow Kelly to sell the ATV.
Delete2. The court should favor in defense of Forkin due to Kelly's negligence in getting the ATV impounded and his phony information saying that it was impounded in 10 minutes.
1. A visual contract
ReplyDelete2. No, because it is not a legal purpose.
3. She does because John bought the ring for her so it is rightfully his. She should be responsible for the money lost in the canceling of the wedding.
All of the 5 elements are there for it to be a legally enforceable contract for the defendant to sell it. I believe that the plaintiff will win because the defendant stated that everything the plaintiff said was true and he left the ATV in the middle of the road, unattended when he was responsible for selling it. Since he got it taken away from him, he should be responsible to pay the plaintiff back.
Delete1. implied contract
ReplyDelete2. No because this type of social agreement does not break any form of contract. Just because the two agreed and bought items for this set date, that either one of them should have to pay the other.
3. She should give the ring back.
There is a legal contract based on the evidence because it was a verbal contract. And based on the evidence heard, the government could have not reached the quad in 10 minutes, selling the quad was Kelly's responsibility and the quad was impounded. The plaintiff will win the case.
Delete1. Implied Contract
ReplyDelete2.no there just friends its a causal date they dont need to go to court
3. Jane should give the ring back since they are not yet married If John canceled, he should get the ring, but pay the missing expenses.
yes it is because they have everything except a contract in writing and the old guy is going to win because it is obvious that the young male is lying
Delete1. Implied Contract
ReplyDelete2. No, it's not in writing and it was not for a legal purpose, so it is not enforceable.
3. Maybe, since it could be said that the ring was only a gift. If it was agreed upon that it was not a gift, then she must give it back.
The plaintiff will win the case, since the contract was legally enforceable, and the defendant is most likely lying. There is no way the government could have reached the ATV in 10 minutes, and he has no proof that the vehicle was impounded, so he has no evidence to support his claim.
Delete1. Implied Contract
ReplyDelete2. its not an illegal purpose so the court does not get involved.
3. She should give the ring back and cancel other arrangements that they made but if John canceled it than he should cancel the arrangements and pay for the missing expenses and if he gave her the ring on a holiday or any other special ring then he can't get the ring back but if he didn't then he can get it back.
In this case i think that the guy with the beard is going to win because they do have offer and acceptance, consideration, capacity to contract, genuine agreement and a legal purpose. They have all of the following and the defendant isn't giving efficient information about what time he came to get the vehicle and don't seem to be all that clear in what he is trying to say
Delete1. Visual/Implied
ReplyDelete2. No, not a legal purpose. Not enforceable.
3. Maybe , it was a gift.
1. JJ just formed an implied contract. It is based on what happens every single day.
ReplyDelete2. It is not a legal purpose and cannot involve any legal actions.
3. Maybe, because it is the law to give the ring back based on marital purposes. If it was on a holiday, the ring can be kept.
In this court case, the partially white-mustached guy claims that the other guy has violated a legally enforceable verbal contract. The quad being impounded was Kelly's responsibility and the unlikeliness of a government quad arriving in 10 minutes flat.
Delete1. Implied contract.
ReplyDelete2. No it is not for a legal purpose
3. The ring is a gift if it was given on a holiday
The plaintiff will win because it is a legally bound contract. The contract had an offer and an acceptance, it was a genuine agreement, he had permission from his son to sell the atv's, and he did not need it in writing for this agreement. It was in the verbal contract that the defendant will sell the atv and not keep it for him self. He owes the plaintiff the atv or the two-thousand he wanted it to sell for.
Delete1.) Visual because he saw him and gave him a nod.
ReplyDelete2.) No, because there is nothing in writing
3.) she can keep the ring if she wants to since he is the one who broke the contract.
I think that the plaintiff will not get as much as he wants back because there was not legal contract, just a verbal agreement and who he gave it to he trusted to sell it and should not have. Now that the quad is gone he cannot get his money back from it anyway because he never had a legal contract on how much to sell it for, the plaintiff may win but not as much money as he may like.
Delete1.) Implied Contract
ReplyDelete2.) No because that's a personal confrontational not a legal one.
3.)Depends on the day. She can keep the ring if she wants to since he is the one who broke the contract.
1.) Offer and Acceptance,Consideration, Genuine agreement. The Mustache Guy is because he most likely has more evidence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Implied contract
ReplyDelete2. It's not a legal purpose
3. If he breaks off the wedding, she is allowed to keep the ring. If she breaks off the wedding, she has to give it back.
There was no written agreement on what they decided to do. The judge might rule in favor of Forkin because Kelly isn't telling the truth about where the quad is and he hasn't paid Forkin the $2000 he was suppose to get for selling it , which he didnt do.
Delete1. The contract is not legally enforceable because there is no written document stating that Forkin would allow Kelly to sell the ATV.
ReplyDelete2. The court should favor in defense of Forkin due to Kelly's negligence in getting the ATV impounded and his phony information saying that it was impounded in 10 minutes.
1.) Implied Contract.
ReplyDelete2.) No, the confrontational is not legal.
3.) She can keep the ring, if it was gifted to her on holiday.
i think the guy with the mustache will win
ReplyDelete1: the father will win this case because he has a legally enforces contact.
ReplyDeleteTWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Two inmates are suing the Twin Falls County jail saying they have not received adequate mental health care.English said he was denied his psychiatric medication for three months and placed in solitary confinement when staff mistakenly believed he was suicidal. He said Preal was put in solitary and at one point made to strip naked because jail staff believed he was suicidal.
ReplyDeletehttp://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/8e85dbcfaf4147b1e9c3b6da60457d52
1.) Implied Contract
ReplyDelete2.) No because that's a personal confrontational not a legal one.
3.)Depends on the day. She can keep the ring if she wants to since he is the one who broke the contract.