Weiner must repay the difference to ryan questions

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: ulative and skillful predator. It concluded that Ryan should be allowed to rescind the transaction, although Weiner was entitled to subtract the mortgage and house expenses, plus reasonable interest from the sum Ryan had paid him. Weiner must repay the difference to Ryan. Questions for Discussion 1. The law normally expects people to look after their own interests when they make a contract. Why do you think the court decided otherwise in this case? 2. There was no evidence that Ryan lacked capacity to contract. Do you think it is ethical to let him get out of the contract now? Many people make bad contracts. Where should the law draw the line, when it comes to helping them after the fact? 3. Do you think Mr. Weiner acted ethically in this situation? Did he act legally? rog80328_06_c06_111-133.indd 128 10/26/12 5:37 PM CHAPTER 6 Section 6.4 Chapter Summary Case Study: Rosenberg v. Son, Inc. 491 N.W.2d 71 (N.D. 1992) Facts: Pratt contracted to buy a Dairy Queen from the Rosenbergs. The terms of the sales contract for the franchise, inventory, and equipment were a purchase price totaling $62,000, a $10,000 down payment, and $52,000 due in quarterly payments at 10 percent interest over a 15-year period. Pratt later assigned and delegated the contract to Son Inc. The contract included a “Consent to Assignment,” which the Rosenbergs Even though Pratt no longer had signed. Pratt then moved out of state and had nothing more the Dairy Queen, as an assignor and to do with the Dairy Queen. delegator Pratt remained liable to the Son Inc. then assigned and delegated the contract to Merit original owner for payment. Steven Lane/Associated Press Corp. Merit made payments to the Rosenbergs, but payments ceased with over $17,000 still owing. Merit then declared bankruptcy. The Rosenbergs sued Pratt and Son Inc. for the unpaid balance plus interest. Issue: Was Pratt, as an assignor and delegator, still liable on the contract to the Rosenbergs, the obligee/ obligor? Discussion: The court first stated the general principles of law...
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