Bi-Lateral or Unilateral Contract
The case of Mark Realty, Inc. v. Rogness involved two parties: Mark Realty, Inc. and Rogness. Mark Realty, Inc aimed at the reviewing the court decision in favor of Rogness stressing that the latter has violated the contract law. The main debate of the case referred to the definition of whether a particular brokerage transaction was a unilateral contract or bilateral contract. Mark Realty, Inc. insisted that a particular brokerage transaction was subject to the unilateral law that implied that the party could refuse the contract. In contrast, Rogness insisted that a particular brokerage transaction was a bilateral law that implied the mutual responsibility of the parties and their mutual agreement to revocation of the contract. Eventually, the Circuit Court for Bervard County (Florida) affirmed the previous court decision in terms of the portion of a judgment that one of the conveyances was not a sale that gave rise to a commission. On the other hand, the court ruled that the remainder was the subject to bilateral contracts.
Case 2 (Contract Acceptance)
Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 424 A. 2d 249
The case involved two parties: Durick Insurance and Andrus. In this case, the defendant appealed tan award to plaintiff insurer of premiums on an insurance policy issued by the plaintiff. In actuality, the major problem was that Durick insurance prolonged the contract, which Andrus was not willing to do. Moreover, Andrus was not even aware that contract was prolonged and he just refused from prolonging his contract when the time to pay has come. The court reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In fact, the court stood on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant created no contract that was the major cause for the decision in favor of the plaintiff. To put it more precisely, in the course of the trail, it was found out that there was no meeting of the minds and acceptance by the defendant insured in regard to the insurance contract terms. Moreover, the court ruled that the contract was not created because a valuable service was not rendered. In such a way, the court took the side of the plaintiff because of the violation of the contract law by the defendant and simply because there was no contract.
Case 3 (Contract Consideration)
Penley v. Penley, 332, S.E. 2d 51
The case involved the dispute between spouses, in which the plaintiff, the former husband, sought for the review of the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment that he owned 48% of the stock of corporation formed by the defendants’ former wife. The court took the decision in favor of the plaintiff and reversed the previous decision of the court on the premise that the trial judge correctly entered judgment on the jury verdict and the evidence of contract between parties involved in the case was sufficient. In such a way, the court grounded its decision by evidence which proved the existence of the contract between parties. In this respect, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that the major evidence to prove the existence of the contract was the fact of bargaining between the parties, which implies that they had a contract or at least the intention to create a contract. Therefore, the court took the decision in favor of the plaintiff, whereas the defendant has committed the breach of contract under the contractual law, namely paragraph 27.1
Case 4 (Statute of Frauds)
Hoffman v. Sun Valley Company, 628 P. 2d 218
The case involved two parties: Hoffman and Sun Valley Company. In fact, the case was the attempt of the plaintiff to review the decision of the lower court (Idaho) to recognize the existence of the contract between parties. The court took the decision in favor of the plaintiff and proved that the parties had a contract. In fact, the seller did not want to agree that there was a contract between parties but the court disagreed and ruled that there was an oral contract between parties. The court stood on the ground that the sequence of events as reflected in the record and the findings of the trial were supported by substantial, albeit conflicting evidence and would not be disturbed on appeal. Moreover, the argument of the plaintiff that the defendant has violated the statute of frauds was rejected by the court because even if there was the violation of the statute of fraud there should be the enforcement of the admitted agreement. In other words, the parties should have the written contract to satisfy the appeal of the plaintiff.
Case 5 (Ethics)
Winkel v. Family Health Care, P.C, 668 P. 2d 208
The case involved two parties: Winkel and Family Health Car, P.C. The plaintiff was seeking an accounting of profits, damages and injunctive relief based on six causes of action arising from his employment with Family Health Care. As the matter of fact, the plaintiff argued that the defendant violated the statute of frauds and prevented him from receiving all the benefits and profits he should receive according to the terms of his contract. On analyzing the contract and actions of both parties, the District Court amended the judgment of the lower court by decreasing the bonus reward to $9.600. The decision of the court was grounded on the fact that there was the oral agreement between parties and the defendant did not violate the oral agreement. In this respect, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that this contract could be enforced, if it was a written contract, where parties could indicate clearly all of their duties and obligations on the subject of the contract.