If he or she decides to sue the breaching party there

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rd. There are also many external events that can discharge a contract, such as frustration or impossibility. And if there should be a breach of the contract, the innocent party will have a decision to make: to sue or not to sue? If he or she decides to sue the breaching party, there will be a further choice regarding the possible remedy to request. Monetary damages are the most common breach of contract remedy, usually in the form of compensatory damages. Specific performance may be available if the contract subject matter is unique. Of course, having the right to sue does not always mean it is the best way to proceed. In many cases, the cost and time involved in litigation may mean the parties have considerable incentive to settle the case out of court. In others, the best course may be simply to chalk a breach up to experience, and move on without invoking legal proceedings at all. Focus on Ethics Ryan, a 69-year-old man with a ninth-grade education who was a widower and had been retired about ten years, fell behind on his mortgage payments and was facing foreclosure on his house. He was then approached by Weiner, whom he had never met before. Weiner was a real estate broker who was in the business of buying and leasing inner city properties. He said that he could help Ryan keep his house. Ryan later testified that Weiner said he would give Ryan a loan; Weiner said he offered to buy the house and rent it to Ryan. Weiner took Ryan to a lawyer’s office, where Ryan thought he was signing loan documents but in actuality was signing a deed granting the property to Weiner. Ryan testified he did not read the documents because he trusted Weiner. Over the years, Ryan paid him a total of $21,480, and Weiner expended $12,149.27 on the mortgage and utilities. However, Weiner never legally assumed the obligation to the bank to pay the mortgage, and Ryan remained liable although he now did not have title to the property. Eventually Ryan decided he had paid enough, and sought to rescind the transaction. The court found that although Ryan may not have exercised a reasonable amount of care in his dealings with Weiner, Weiner was characterized as a manip...
View Full Document

This test prep was uploaded on 04/09/2014 for the course BUS 311 taught by Professor Parker during the Spring '10 term at Ashford University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online