Pearsall v. Alexander This case involves a consideration which is the inducement to make a contract enforceable. Pearsall and Alexander had an agreement to share to proceeds. But when Alexander had a $20,000 winning ticket, he refused to give Pearsall anything, which led Pearsall to sue Alexander for a breach of an agreement. Court ruled in favor of Pearsall, and Alexander must share the winnings enforced by valid agreement. I think Court was right on the decision based on a fact that they always had mutual agreement that they would share the winnings.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay topic for only $13.90/page Tell us what you need to have done now!
Although since none of the agreements are written, anyone could have denied about having any kind of agreement at all. It would have dragged this case lot longer. Denny v. Reppert This case deals with pre-existing obligations, which the law does not regard the performances of preexisting obligations. First State Bank of Eubank, Kentucky was robbed by three armed men. Based on the information supplied by four employees of the bank, three law enforcement officials, consisting two state police officers and deputy sheriff in a neighboring county, were able to catch the criminals.
All seven claimed for the reward, but the trial court held that only Reppert, a deputy sheriff, was entitled to the reward. Bank employees had pre-existing obligations to supply information about bank robbers and state police officers also had a duty to apprehend the robbers. Only Reppert, who was a deputy sheriff in a neighboring county, did not have any obligation to apprehend the robbers, thus making him the only person eligible to claim the reward.
I agree with an outcome of this case, but just based on the fact that Reppert is a sheriff from a neighboring county. New England Rock Services, Inc. v. Empire Paving, Co. This case focuses on Modification of a Contract/Agreement. New England Rock Services entered into contract with Empire Paving to provide drilling and blasting services on the Niles Hill Road sewer project which Empire was the general contractor. Empire Paving had responsibility of controlling the water on the site properly.
But their failure to maintain proper condition to work has hindered Rock Services to finish work properly and in timely order. In order for Rock Services to finish their work, modification of contract was inevitable, so that they could use more costly and time-consuming method to finish their work. I believe Court’s decision was right in ruling in favor of Rock Services, as Empire Paving did not follow their obligation to maintain proper work condition which made modification of contract valid.
Decision might have gone other way only if Empire Paving did their obligations. DiLorenzo v. Valve and Primer Corporation. This case deals with a past consideration and promissory estoppel. DiLorenzo claims that Valve & Primer offered him ten-year stock option that would allow DiLorenzo to purchase shares at fixed price, but the employment agreement between him and Valve and Primer did not contain a stock purchase agreement. DiLorenzo files a promissory estoppel but there is not enough evidence to support his claim and the court turned it down.
This case confirms that the past consideration is not consideration. Even if DiLorenzo claims that Valve and Primer did offer him a stock option, if actual contract does not have it, then Valve and Primer does not have any obligation to offer. DiLorenzo filed for promissory estoppel, but there is no evidence that he continued to work for the company based on the promise of stock option, so court rightfully rejected his appeal. Unless DiLorenzo had stronger proof that the company offered him the stock option, there is almost no chance