Major Questions in Legal Issues - Essay Example

The story was in a position to pay the amount of money. Both parties, therefore, could agree. In this case, it is clear that all the obligations were met by the promise and the bargain is to be honoured thereof. Sidway should respect the agreement and follow what Story had said.

The issue here is whether a valid contract was written between the two parties in question and the suit entities on a promissory estoppel theory. The theory explains that; if a person makes a false statement to another and the recipient relies on it in good faith and to his disadvantage, then the court treats the statement as a promise to provide justice. Meister, which is a real estate developer entered into a considerable contract with Dr Schmidt, who offered the contract to develop the Texas Centre for athletes. The contract was considerable since the contractor accepted and was in a position to perform the work he contracted with the amount of money agreed upon. In analyzing the case it is clear that Dr. Schmidt gave an assurance to the contractor on full work completion, it was, therefore, reasonable for the contractor to rely on the assurance. Prevention of injustice is the imperative idea in this case, and injustice can be prevented only by enforcing the assurance of Dr Schmidt. Minister is entitled to complete the project they contracted.

The uprising issue, in this case, is whether the two parties entered into a valid agreement and contract between them. The fact is that Kathy left his car to be serviced by Freddie at any agreed contract on the cost. Freddie had an obligation of repairing the car at any cost that he deemed think was fit. In this scenario, the parties did not have a valid contract between them that was to stipulate how the business was to be undertaken; it is, therefore, a quasi-contract. In a quasi-contract, the court must prevent unjust enrichment. The bill that Freddie has given Kathy seemed to be high compared to the repair that has been made. Kathy has a legitimate right to question how the bill is coming up to such exorbitant amounts; she even provides the prices from a company that sells the equipment at a cheaper price. Freddie has not provided a proper explanation of how the price came about. From the analysis, it is clear that there was a breach in following the contract laws and the plaintiff wants to gain riches from the defendant. Freddie is obliged to accept a check that he has been served by Kathy and has no legitimate right to get more payments. Read More