In the case of Greenlee Smithe, it would be impossible to disaffirm the contract that he had with the Benz dealer. First of all it had been a couple of weeks since the contract had been made and was effective that day. The Benz dealer had also done his or her part of the contract and had given Greenlee the metallic green Benz that he wanted in the first place. A contract cannot be disaffirmed because one party decided that he wanted something else especially when the other party had already done his or her part of the agreement and the affectivity of the contract had started.
The second thing is that Greenlee was able to use the car for a couple of weeks and he found nothing wrong with the product aside from its color. Of course the value of the car is not the same as it was before. It cannot be considered as new anymore and the value sure has depreciated. The contract that Greenlee had can be void only if the dealer agrees, something that is surely not possible. Either way, Greenlee is sure to lose the case because he is the one who does not do
Need essay sample on "Greenlee Smithe"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
On the other hand, if Greenlee wanted to change the color so bad he can have it repainted and pay the appropriate cost. Also he can return the car to the dealer in exchange for a new one provided that he pays the depreciation value of the car and upon the approval of the dealer. In order for Greenlee to achieve the color that he wanted, he is sure to pay for it and it is not a responsibility of the dealer to make such changes because he or she had already done his or her part of the contract. Besides, the dealer will not force Greenlee to buy the car that he do not want and Greenlee sure wanted the car before the contract had been signed.
A contract cannot be easily altered if one wishes to do so. Both parties must agree to void the said contract. Also, when the contract had taken effect for a long time, it can only be void if one of the parties involved was unable to do his or her part of the contract but any payment done will be his or her responsibility.
It the case of Adam Chandler, since there had been another party that is involved, who has the obligation to pay Chandler for the work and service that he rendered? Is it Palmer Courtlandt who is originally involved in the contract or Joseph Martin who had received the service of Chandler?
Palmer is absolutely not responsible for paying Chandler although he was the one that is involved in the contract since he does not received the service that is in the contract. Meaning, Chandler was not able to do his part of the contract since he had given the service to someone else by mistake. Palmer can apply for a bleach of contract since the deal was not met and hire other party to resurface his driveway or reenter to a contract with Chandler for the job.
Surely, Chandler would want someone to pay the services that he rendered adding to the fact that the materials do cost a lot. However, Palmer is not liable to pay chandler since he does not receive Chandler’s service. Thus the question is whether Martin is legally responsible to pay Chandler?
Since Martin intentionally let Chandler to resurface his driveway, he is responsible to pay Chandler for the job. He is the one who received the service. Also, he is there by the time that Chandler is doing the work that is supposed to be for Palmer but he does not do anything to stop Chandler although he know that he is in the wrong residence. Thus, it is his responsibility to pay Chandler. He cannot also prove that he does not know anything since he witnessed and let Chandler resurface his driveway.
If he does not intentionally wanted Chandler to resurface his driveway then he should have stop him before he even get started. Also it is impossible to resurface a residence driveway if the owner does not permit it and so it is really intentional on the part of Martin. Although he is not the one who entered the contract with chandler, he is still responsible for the work that Chandler had done.
The importance of having a contract for an agreement is in order to make sure that both parties that are involved in the agreement will do his or her part of the agreement especially when a large amount of money is involved in the agreement. In the case of Barbara, it can be said that it would be impossible for her to collect the $10,000 from Alexis although they have made an agreement.
Barbara sues Alexis for refusing to give her the amount that she won in their wager. However, the court will surely not favor Barbara since she has no evidence of the said wager. All that she has is her words in which Alexis can nullify and deny the fact that have entered into a wager in which Barbara won. Because of the amount of money that is involved in the wager, it is also Barbara’s fault why she was not able to receive the price. Since they had agreed upon to pay that large amount, they should have made a contract that is to be signed by both of them to ensure that whoever wins will receive the price that is due them.
Because of the absence of such document, there is no proof that such agreement does exist. The lost of a contract in their agreement also shows that both parties may not be willing to pay the price in case the other party wins. Maybe Barbara is also planning to do the same thing if Alexis won the wager.
Because of the absence of evidence, there is surely no chance for Barbara to be able to claim her price unless Alexis decided to pay her. Suing Alexis of such case would only be a waste of time, effort and money on her part because the court will surely not accept such statements without evidence. However, if a witness is present by the time that they are making the wager, she may have a chance but since no such person is said to be present by that time, it would be useless to sue Alexis. There is absolutely nothing she can do about it and it would be better if she would just forget about the money and learn from her experience.
The American Law Institute & National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Stat law
(23, January 2003). Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html