Fred Smith and His Family - Assignment Example

? The Case of Fred Smith and his Family Unit Assessment task number and id Your ial and time (if an internal The Case of Fred Smith and his Family Introduction The issues surrounding the document that Fred Smith wrote on December 25th, 2010 involve promises that determine the ability of the intended recipients thereof to sue him in response to his lack of action on that document. The following answers to their questions provide them with an understanding of their position when considering litigation.James Although the document looks like it was signed in good faith between your father and you, among others, you have caused an issue with your claim to the money that he promised you by your email to Matt concerning your father’s state of mind during the event. There is a clear evidentiary path between your father’s diagnosis, the effects of his medicine and your own claim that he was not in his sound mind at the time of the signing (World Trade Organization 1996, 1811). Let me outline the reasons that lead me to believe that your claim is unlikely to see a positive verdict. The first test that must be passed for this to be considered a contract is whether or not it is legally enforceable. There must be an offer and an acceptance. The offer must be something that is communicated by one party to another in relationship to what is intended or promised by the contract (Bhana, Bonthuys and Nortje 2009, 31). In this document, your father promises to provide money under specific conditions and this is the offer that he makes. In this document both you and your father make specific offers and both of you signed in agreement. By signing the document, James, you accepted the offer that was being made by your father as well as undertook to facilitate those terms that your father laid out for you in fulfilling this agreement. The agreement that Fred Smith wrote with his family and friends can be viewed as a ‘comfort letter’. This means that the letter was written to assure those that he had made promises to that he intended to fulfill those promises (Mulcahay 2008, 78). The comfort letter written by your father was intended to show that he was making a commitment to fulfill the negotiated terms for financial gifts that he had discussed during the social event at Christmas time. Under the terms of the legality of the ‘comfort letter’, your father would be obligated to fulfill those promises. Also, it appears he fulfilled that promise in 2010 and through that action it might appear that you have a good claim, however, there are other circumstances that would influence the court’s view. The context of the pre-negotiations to this agreement, however, makes enforcing it problematic. The will of your father can easily be proven to have been subverted by a number of factors. One of those factors is the state of his health. His attorney could cite CVA v Amadio in which it was made clear that taking advantage of someone whose will is weaker negates the agreement that was made. The unconscionable act is defined as one where “the will of the innocent party, even if independent and voluntary, is the result of the disadvantageous position in which he is placed and of the other party unconscientiously taking advantage of that position” (Goldring 1998, 34). You have told me that your father had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and was taking medication that made him more emotional than usual, correct? This would likely be interpreted as making him weaker than those around him, with you and your family being accused of taking advantage of his condition in pressing him on those statements towards making written promises. It is likely that just as in Blomley v Ryan, the pressure of the occasion and the weaker will of your father will render a verdict that sets aside the contractual nature of the paper that you had your father write and sign (Chen-Wishart 2007, 374). The strongest evidence that this will be a problem is that you yourself made the claim to Matt that your father was pressured into writing this agreement in the first place. Because you positioned your father as too weak to resist Matt’s influence in the writing of this agreement, you also suggest that he was too weak to resist your influence in writing out his promises to you on the very same agreement. In essence, James, you have won the case for your father by suggesting the very defense that his attorneys will use to support his position in not fulfilling what was promised. I’m sorry, James, but it appears that you may have caused your own defeat through your attempt to deny Matt what he felt he had been promised. Matt Matt, you have in your possession a document that declares the intent of Fred Smith to give you 10,000.00 per year to support you during your time at the University. This claim was made during a Christmas day social gathering in which Mr. Smith became emotional and made several oral declarations and a promise which he then followed up in writing in the form of an “agreement”. Fred put the responsibility of fulfilling that promise on his son James, so you wish to file against James for violating the agreement and not following through with Mr. Smith’s wishes, even though he signed an agreement to do so. It appears that you received a response from James stating that he had never intended to support the agreement and that you were responsible for influencing his father who was too weak to be responsible for the promise that he had made. The agreement that was written down by Fred Smith provides for a number of promises to different parties, including the promise to send you 10,000.00 per year which the issuer of the written promise, Mr Smith, then imposed on James as James’s responsibility, James, too, having signed the contract. One of the problems with this that might occur during litigation to gain the funds that were agreed upon is that your signature is not on the note, thus an acceptance was not made. However, because the document can be seen as a comfort letter to those who Mr. Smith made promises to, your signature would not likely be required and the terms of the actual contract considered the oral agreement that was made previous to the signing of the document (Mulcahay 2008, 78). One positive factor is that the terms of the negotiation are laid out in the letter and are, according to witnesses, defined within the letter that you have in your possession. In addition, James has made a claim against the document which supports the idea that he believes it to be legitimate. As your lawsuit is against James and not against Fred, it is clear that it is his intentions behind signing the document and his belief in its validity that are in question. What is important for validating the contract is time, special knowledge and the importance of what was agreed upon (Furmston, Cheshire and Fifoot 2006, 167). The time of the offer is crucial and could be problematic as Mr. Smith was suffering from the effects of his medication and the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s that can be used as a defense of unconscionable conduct. However, it is James who does not have this special set of circumstances and his agreement to do what his father desires that should be the central issue. James has validated his belief in the letter and having signed it agreed to do as his father wished. The special knowledge that James acknowledges is that he understands what his father intends and is going to act on that knowledge. As well, the importance of the event is affirmed by his signature. One of the factors in your favor is that James did sign the document. According to parole evidence rules, all factors that are needed for the contract are within the letter and validated the oral contract that was made between Matt and Mr. Smith (Blum 2007, 348). James has signed to agree that he will facilitate his father’s wishes. According to the ‘signature rule’, an individual is bound to an agreement if they apply their signature to the document whether or not they understand its contents, which means that James signed it and he is bound by his signature to the contents (Chen-Wishart 2007, 402). Interpretation of the contract, however, can be made in context of and with reference to the emotions of the event and related to the medical issues that have influence over the entire event (Blum 2007, 348). There is a chance that the court will side in favor of the defense in relationship to the context under which the document is signed. Your chances of having a favorable outcome against James are good, but there is a chance that the context of the event will side in favor of the defense. Kat According to yourself and witnesses, the following statement was made to you and your sister Jane by your grandfather in reference to a promise of cash should you desire it: I love you both to bits. I promise you, if either of you want some cash, up to $50.000, just let me know and it will be yours, no questions asked - this is in recognition of all the joy you have given me over the years. Furthermore, that promise was fulfilled to your sister who used the money to start a business. The issue is that you asked for money for what might seem a more frivolous use, but that your grandfather had promised to give that amount to you regardless of the purpose for which you intended to use it. The document that your father wrote has been considered a ‘comfort letter’ in two other cases against that agreement. This can be enforced when “the party receiving the letter of comfort was entitled to rely upon its contents in the light of its exact wording and the circumstances” (Ma?ntysaari 2010, 185). In reference to you and your sister, it states the amount of 50,000 dollars would be given upon asking for it with no questions asked. The terms on which the case depends is that the money was to be given without questioning what it would be used for by the recipient. A ground for control where terms are concerned is whether or not they are equitable in relationship to what is being given in exchange for what is expected in return. That you wanted to use it for a year-long trip would be immaterial to the gift of it according to the terms set by your grandfather. The exchange is not predicated on its use but on the joy that you gave to your grandfather which warranted the offer of the gift. Under the terms of the contract, you are entitled to the gift that your grandfather promised. It is not appropriate to breach a contract when it has been validated through partial compliance (Blum 2007, p.8). What is going to be the problem in defining how the outcome of litigation is resolved is whether or not the context that arose around the event in which these promises were made will constitute an unconscionable act because of your grandfather’s medical condition. Although he made good on his promise to your sister, the fact that he would not make good on his promise to you might be considered because of the nature of his illness and that the oral contract was not enforceable on those grounds. You have a chance because of the condition of having made good on the agreement with your sister, but his condition may void the contract making that incident immaterial. The contract will be void if the court declares your grandfather mentally incompetent at the time it was signed (Cross and Miller 2012, 202). Bibliography Bhana, Deeksha, E. Bonthuys and Minette Nortje. 2009. Student's guide to the law of contract. Cape Town: Juta. Blum, Brian A. 2007. Contracts: examples & explanations. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Chen-Wishart, Mindy. 2007. Contract law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, Hugh. 2008. Standard contract terms in Europe: a basis for and a challenge to European contract law. Alphen Aan Den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. Cross, Frank B. and Roger LeRoy Miller. 2012. The legal environment of business: text and cases: ethical, regulatory, global and corporate issues. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Frey, Martin A. and Phyllis Hurley Frey. 2001. Essentials of contract law. Albany, NY: West/Thomson Learning. Furmston, M. P., G. C. Cheshire and C. H. S. Fifoot. 2006. Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's law of contract. Oxford, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. Goldring, John. 1998. Consumer protection law. Leichhardt, N.S.W.: Federation Press. Ma?ntysaari, Petri. 2010. The law of corporate finance: general principles and EU law. Heidelberg: Springer. Mulcahay, Linda. 2008. Contract law in perspective. New York: Routledge. World Trade Organization. 1996. Dispute settlement reports. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Read More