Zhang PC2 Brief

Zhang PC2 Brief - information by Sorichetti that states...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Zhang v. Sorichetti's Issue Was the termination of old contract valid and new consideration enforceable between Zhang and Sorichetti? Rule Offer - 1)Present intent to contract 2) definiteness of terms and 3)communicated to offeree. Acceptance - 1)present intent to accept 2) same terms (mirror image rule) and 3) communicated to offeror. Consideration - is a 1) legal value (to act/not act without having a legal duty to do so) 2) bargained for (agreed exchanged terms) promisor - making promise. promisee - receiving promise. Offeree - the one receiving. Offeror - making the offer. Contract - an exchange of promises. Preexisting duties - 1)contractual duties 2)modify that contract and 3)some new consideration to be binding. Application Zhang argues that Sorichetti had a contractual duty that was agreed on February 1, 2004 to sell the Las Vegas home for $532,500 and listed March as closing date including a few furnishings. Zhang agrees that the terms were modified, but because he was coerced with incorrect
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: information by Sorichetti that states Nevada law allows the rescission of real property purchase agreements within three days of contracting. Zhang agrees new consideration was added, but it was not valid because his bargaining was coerced with incorrect information about a non existing law. Sorichetti agrees that the contractual duties existed between them. Sorichetti argues that with consent from Zhang the contract was modified to include a new consideration, in return for paying $578,000 and a later vacancy date, Zhang would receive household furnishings drapes that were not listed in the original agreement. Sorichetti argues that the new considerations was a new price of $578,000, household furnishing drapes and an April date instead of March as closing date. Conclusion No the new contract was not enforceable because the elements of termination and new consideration were not met. Sorichetti coerced Zhang with incorrect information to sign a new agreement....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online