When the oral contract was made Tidwell gave Anthony a check for 1000 as

When the oral contract was made tidwell gave anthony

This preview shows page 20 - 22 out of 22 pages.

$500 each. When the oral contract was made, Tidwell gave Anthony a check for $1000 as "earnest money or good faith money towards the purchase of the cattle." Anthony sold the cattle to someone else. Tidwell sued, asking court to either compel Anthony to perform the contract or to pay damages that Tidwell suffered from the allegedbreach of contract. What issues do you see and how would you resolve those issues?the POINTS: DIFFICULTY:A 1Difficulty: ChallengingNATIONAL STANDARDS: United States- BUSPROG: AnalyticSTATE STANDARDS: United States- NC- AICPA: BB-LegalTOPICS: KEYWORDS:A-Head: Common Law Statute Of Frauds: What The Writing Must ContainBloom's: Evaluation
46. Thomas Reep, was the president of First National Bank in Clarksville. R.L. Moore approached Reep requesting the bank to open an account in the name of Texas Continental Express, Inc., a corporation owned by his two sons. R.L. had no affiliation with the corporation nor any financial interest in it. R.L. promised Reep that he would open several accounts in First National that would more than amount to the business of his sons. R.L. assured Reep that if anything came up in connection with the sons' account, Reep was to contract him directly. Upon these conditions, First National proceeded to furnish a regular checking account and bank draft services for Texas Continental. Sometime later, First National paid two drafts overdrawing the account by $448,942. When Reep contacted R.L. about the overdrawn account, R.L. assured Reep that money would be deposited in the account. When Reep called back a few days later to fmd out why the money had not been deposited, R.L. informed Reep that his wife had suffered a nervous breakdown the night before and the deal was off. First National Bank brought suit to enforceR.L.'s promise to pay the debts of Texas Continental. What is the likely outcome?ANSWER:R.L.'s defense will be the statute of frauds. A promise to pay the debt of another must be in writing with the defendant's signature. A jury found that R.L. did not promise to become primarily liable for the debts. Since this promise violates thestatute of frauds, it is unenforceable unless an exception applies. The bank argued the leading object rule or alternatively promissory estoppel. R.L. had no affiliation or financial interest in his sons' corporation. Therefore there was no evidence to support the claim that R.L. made the promise to obtain a benefit for himself. The promissory estoppel doctrine failed as well. The court found that the bank did not rely conclusivelyPOINTS:

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture