Tom promised Harry that when he retired he would sell his train set to Harry. No contacts were signed but a promise was made. Harry even built a 2000 sq. ft. room specicially for the train set. Tom sold the train set to David. Harry sued Tom for breach of contract.
2006-09-15 09:48:54 · 10 answers · asked by skinnystick4562000 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
god you people are idiots...verbal contracts are legal and binding...but harder to prove in court...if tom tells the truth in court.....harry wins...harry gets the train set for the same price David paid. providing David turns it over. or harry can recover the cost of building a room. but then again based only on the information in your question, tom wins because there is no evidence tom has retired. a contract is an offer and an acceptance.
2006-09-16 06:17:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Tom had promised Harry to sell his train set. On his promise, Harry built a 2000 sq ft room for train set. Tom breached his promise and sold it to David. Harry sued Tom for breach in court of law. RESULT: Harry will loose the case.
REASON: There is a difference between promise, agreement and contract. Every promise is not an agreement and every agreement is not a contract. There must be some consideration for the contract. In this case there is no consideration. Harry has not promised to pay the amount to Tom for his train set. No amount was fixed as price of the train set. It was just a inconclusive promise between them, which has no legal binding.
2006-09-16 19:12:39 · answer #2 · answered by Seagull 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A couple things come to mind in this case. Firstly, did they agree to a price? If the agreement involved a sum greater than $500, it has to be written and a verbal contract would be null and void. Second, how long after the promise was made to sell the train set was it sold to David. After so long, a verbal contract is unenforcable. I honestly can't see any way for Harry to win this case.
2006-09-15 09:54:44 · answer #3 · answered by Chris D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no contract. You haven't (excuse me, Harry hasn't) signed any legal document stating the train set has been willed or will belong to Harry. Tom has EVERY right to change his mind even if he "promised" the train set to Harry and sell the train to WHOEVER he wants to sell it to. Too bad for Harry. Maybe David paid more than Harry was going to pay.
2006-09-15 09:59:52 · answer #4 · answered by ouisy_01 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Verbal contracts dont hold up in court. Harry should have waited to secure the train before building a 2000 sq. ft. room for a train. That would just be plain smarts. Trust no one but yourself.
2006-09-15 10:07:55 · answer #5 · answered by god_doesnt_love_erudite 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Was there a contract (normally offer and acceptance for a price and date certain) between Tom and Harry? If so, Harry wins even though there was nothing in writing.
2006-09-15 09:54:12 · answer #6 · answered by kearneyconsulting 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My guess would be that, since there was no contract, Harry couldn't win on a breach of contract suit since there was no written agreement. However, I would think he would be eligible for some sort of reimbursement since there was a verbal promise made.
2006-09-15 09:58:56 · answer #7 · answered by kimilou2001 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Posting your law school exam questions here isn't nice.
Offer, acceptance, consideration, all definite terms? Add action in reliance on the promise. What do you think? Is there a defense to the contract like Statute of Frauds?
If you said contract, you got it wrong. Where's the price term?
2006-09-15 10:36:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
tom wins, because the agreement was not in writing. Since the property belonged to tom, he could technically do whatever he wanted with it, in spite of spoken promises. I think.
2006-09-15 09:57:51 · answer #9 · answered by Trace 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It could depend on their ages, but also I think that most states don't honor verbal contracts...
2006-09-15 09:58:50 · answer #10 · answered by Michael J 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋