Formal Legal Brief: Gray v. Reynolds - Assignment Example

The goods were located in Dallas State at the premises of Reynolds. Gray picked up the sawdust continuously for three weeks. However, he made his last weekly payment on March 16, 1984 to Reynolds. Thereafter, he carried out another transaction in the initial period of April 1984. After mentioned transactions, Reynolds told Gray to unfold his plan regarding picking up the sawdust. If he is not interested to pick up the sawdust due to some reason, then he should negotiate Brown to pick up the remaining sawdust at the rate of USD 1 per ton.

On the reluctance of Gray, Reynolds allowed Brown to pick up the stocks of sawdust on April 30, 1984 (See Richard A. Lord, Samuel Williston & West Group, 2007). Issues The petitioner filed the suit against the defendant in the competent court of law to seek legal remedy. On examining the case, the trial court found ample evidence to make up it minds to conclude the case and to announce the judgment. The evidence attached with the case indicates that Gray had to pay the bill of Reynolds on weekly basis after picking up the sawdust but he did not. . The court was of the view that in such circumstances court should not enforce the agreement in letter and in spirit if someone fails to perform accordingly (See Richard A.

Lord, Samuel Williston & West Group, 2007). While citing the case of Smith v. Clark, the court on the basis of evidence observed that Gray breached the contract. Hence, the decision of the trial court do not consider "clearly erroneous" under Rule 52, A. R. Civ. P (See Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, 2008). Analysis On the directives of the trial court the parties involved in this agreement submitted the original transcription of the contract. After examining all the relevant materials, the trial court was of the considered opinion which are as under: a) that Gray had breached the contract by not performing the assigned tasks in terms of goods and payment there against b) It had further breached the contract in connection with the removal and hauling of the sawdust for an unjustified period of time c) it had not abided by the terms of contract if takes into account removing and stockpiling the goods d) hoarded the goods meant for speculation thus failed their commitments with regard to payments on a weekly basis e) that Gray was not entitled to recover since he had failed to perform mutually agreed upon task and put in concerted efforts to mitigate the could be damages (See Richard A.

Lord, Samuel Williston & West Group, 2007). In accordance with the trial court, the contract existed between the mentioned stakeholders. Since Gray failed to act according to the terms of contract, therefore, liable to compensate his counterpart, the Reynolds for the damages occurred