Persuavive Letter to I.M. Bibe stating the reasons that Bibe is bound by the Contract - Research Paper Example

Persuasive letter to I.M.Bibe stating the reasons that Bibeis bound by the contract Task Dear Mr. I.M. Bibe REF: YOUR BINDING OBLIGATION TO OWEN LOTTS OFFER.The purpose of this letter is to discuss your agreement with my client, Owen Lotts concerning the purchase of the coffee shop. We all acknowledge that a bar is not the convenient place to carry out contracts and discuss the ensuing details. Nonetheless, this does not exclude the fact that you willingly signed the document Owen Lotts provided.

The conditions that you agreed upon do not illustrate that you were under duress to comply with the contract’s recommendations. Moreover, considering you are familiarized and able to critically analyze written information confirms that Owen Lotts decision was concise and well thought. A possible argument would be the intoxicating effect of wine that distorted your judgment; however, this will encounter legal obstacles. This is because an individual who is highly subdued by the wine cannot enter into valid contracts.

As such, in an extreme intoxicated state your hand will not be firm enough to outline a clear signature. The signature was firm and accurate like your other signatures. Furthermore, there are few cases, which back Owen Lotts claim of holding you liable to the agreement. The courts set precedents on earlier cases that make it possible for the legal representation of Lotts to pursue this issue with vigor. The argument in Guidini vs. Guidini Case where the plaintiff claimed he was not sober upon making the agreement cannot apply.

Although they are similar because Lotts was buying the wine for you (I.M.Bibe); furthermore, in the Guidini case, the contract was signed after two weeks (Guidici v. Guidici, 2 Cal.2d 497 (Cal., 1935). This technicality erodes any binding precedent to the case since not all factors are similar. The case of Donnelly’s vs. Rees indicates that one of the parties was intoxicated and convinced into finalizing a contract (Donnelly v. Rees, 141 Cal. 56 (Cal. 1903). However, in the Donnelly’s case, the plaintiff was drunk for longer periods unlike in your setting where you had lunch.

This is a basis to argue the non-application of this precedent in this case. Interestingly, the elements in Marron vs. Marron are similar to the Donnelly’s case, and will emphasize Lotts plea in affirming your liability (Marron v. Marron, 19 Cal. App. 326. (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1912). It would be considerably difficult to present your innocence since no supportive precedent of your situation exists. Furthermore, in the case of Swan v. Tablot, the precedent was affirmative that equity will not allow an individual to escape liability claiming he was not sober upon confirming the contract (Swan v.

Talbot, 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907.). However, the exception was if the contract was marred by fraudulent intentions. Incidentally, there was no indication of fraudulent ambitions of the proposing party in the coffee shop contract. The amount of purchase was highlighted on the paper, and you willingly signed. Finally, the Phelan v.Gardner Case applies to this case based on the fact the defendant took the plaintiff out to drink without the intent of conning him (Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306 (1872).

This argument will not hold since it differs from this case in various aspects. One factor is that the plaintiff was drunk prior to going out to a drink with Phelan while you (I.M.Bibe) were sober prior to going out. In addition, the Phelan involved transfer of property while this entails the purchase of property. Such irrefutable technical differences provide a challenging feat to your legal counsel in opposing this claim. Considering the above information, I would advise you to consider this contract as binding to both you and Owen Lotts.

Its revocation can amount to a court case that can result to hefty payment in damages to the guilty party. To avoid this unfortunate occurrence, I would urge you to accomplish your contractual role in the agreement. I look forward to your response.Yours sincerelyBradely Smith (Owen Lotts legal counsel) ReferencesSwan v. Talbot, 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907)Donnelly v. Rees, 141 Cal. 56 (Cal. 1903)Marron v. Marron, 19 Cal. App. 326. (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1912)Guidici v. Guidici, 2 Cal.2d 497 (Cal., 1935)Phelan v.

Gardner, 43 Cal. 306 (1872)