My friend owns a restaurant in the city. The newspaper reported that the city entered into a contract with a construction company to build a convention center across from my friends restaurant. My friend figured that business was going to increase due to the convention center so my friend leased additional space and expanded the restaurant. A few days later the city announced that the construction company breached the contract but decided not to sue them but to build the center in another part of town. My friend wants to sue the construction company to recover what she spent to expand the restaurant on the grounds that she was a third party beneficiary of the contract between the construction company and the city. Will my friend win?
2007-12-16 09:10:33 · 15 answers · asked by Will B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If I were on the jury, no way. Don't count your chickens until they are hatched. No one else can be held liable for your friends unfortunate bad timing.
2007-12-16 09:16:26 · answer #1 · answered by Charles S 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If she don't have any legal documents stating her involvement with that company in anyway then she will not win.
Its like you going out to by 100 electric cars so you can sell them because the news said gas would be $100 per gallon tomorrow. When tomorrow comes the gas is still less than $4. Can you sue the news ?
2007-12-16 09:17:07 · answer #2 · answered by ckm0917 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, based upon the fact that she did this through acting upon what she read in a newspaper, she will not have a leg to stand on. The company can't control what the newspaper writes. The reporter may have misquoted or even been given erronous information.
2007-12-16 09:17:07 · answer #3 · answered by miss_cris101 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, not if she was not a legally recognized party in the contract between the contractor and the city. She should have waited at least until construction was underway before expanding. Sorry. Please advise her not to waste anymore money on a huckster attorney.
2007-12-16 09:15:02 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. She had no contract with anyone and therefore no-one owed her any contractual duty. She decided to take a gamble on more space after all someone could have opened up next door and she lost. All she can hope to do is try to increase her turnover as best she might
2007-12-16 09:15:39 · answer #5 · answered by Scouse 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope. I don't think so. The construction company did not approach your friend about their convention center. Neither did the city. She decided it on her own assumptions.
2007-12-16 09:13:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Minors, as a typical rule of regulation are actually not functional to settlement, different than for concerns that are considered needs such as housing and nutrition. What needless to say surpassed off right here is that the minor didnt exhibit his/her age on the time of the settlement, and the broking disaffirmed the contract while they discovered the real age of the minor. when you consider that loss of competency is a protection to formation of a settlement, the dealership is interior of its rights to refuse to grant the vehicle. As to any declare for particular overall performance, the minor not being functional to settlement, is likewise not functional in maximum circumstances to sue or be sued, different than by a discern or a criminal mum or dad. yet, when you consider that that's for my section an unenforceable contract advert incipio, any declare for particular overall performance will fail. in short, the unique contract could be valid before particular overall performance could be sought. to boot, when you consider that this declare is obviously without criminal advantage, i'd propose that the declare be brushed aside as quickly as attainable, as a results of fact in the event that they proceed, they may well be responsible for an abuse of technique declare, and could finally end up on the hook for any damages that the broking can instruct as a results of fact of this healthful. As for the argument that the broking could have notified the minor that they have got been disaffirming the contract, and that some sort of estoppel by using acquiescence could persist with, I refer to the unique premise that the contract became into invalid from the beginning up, as a results of fact the age of the social gathering is a textile actuality to the transaction, and if that actuality became into the two actively or passively misrepresented, no settlement could be formed.
2016-10-11 10:19:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say probably not since the construction company did not breach any contract with her.
2007-12-16 09:16:34 · answer #8 · answered by dios_et_dios 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since your friend was not a party to the contract, he has no rights in this affair.
2007-12-16 09:21:46 · answer #9 · answered by Bibs 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
jeez of all the things to sue for what a dork ! how can you possibly sue for that reason ??? its idiocy i wonder does she have restrooms in the restaurant is she going to sue people for using them ?
bloody stupid American culture of suing for all manner of idiocy your friend should be sued for wasting the courts time
2007-12-16 09:19:53 · answer #10 · answered by bl_fkt 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋