Term Paper (Case Analysis)
Pro-Gordon C. Johnson
June 18, 2013
Chapter 5-Case 5
Summary: Marie-Claude operated a bowling alley in a commercial area that was adjacent to a residential area. Many small children used the parking lot near the bowling alley as a playground, and Marie-Claude was constantly tell these children leave the parking area maybe they will get injured. However, one six years old boy climb onto the flat roof of the bowling alley and while he is running, tripped and fell to the ground. But Marie-Claude continued to order the child off the roof by several times when he was on the roof.
Analysis: this situation can apply on Trespassers of Occupier Liability and Negligence of the concept of Foreseeability through the Supreme Court of Canada. For plaintiff: the occupier of the building warns the child of any dangers that exist on the property. Meanwhile, according to the concept of Foreseeability part, a very small child of tender years would not be held liable in tort, but children in their early teens, depending upon the extent of their maturity and level of understanding, nay very well is held responsible for their actions.
This case belongs to unintentional acts of a person caused injury to others. For defendant: Owners of buildings, construction sites or those who construct dangerous structures on their premises in neighborhoods where small children live have a special duty to protect the children from harm or injury. On the other hands, the outcome for this situation maybe is Compensatory damages or Nominal damages. For compensatory: the loss suffered by a person in a negligence case in the loss of or damage to property. For nominal: when a person trespasses on the land of another without inflicting physical damage to the property.
Chapter 7-Case 3
Summary: Armstrong Aggregates Co. wrote a letter to Bishop on May 2nd offering to sell him 200 tons of scrap mica at $180 per ton. Bishop received the letter on May 3rd. A few weeks later, Bishop checked the price of mica which is $185. On May 22nd, Bishop wrote to this company that is accepting this offer. But this company did not receive this letter until May 30th. And Armstrong refused to sell mica to Bishop at $187 instead of $180 because the price was increasing.
Analysis: This situation should belong to Offer and Acceptance Section. An offer is not valid until it is received by the offered, and the offeror is not limited by the offer until such time as it is accepted according to Communication of an Offer. So in this case, Bishop received the letter on May 3rd, before May 3rd, it is not bounded. On may 22nd, Bishop wrote to this company and accepted this offer. According to Acceptance of an Offer, the acceptance must take the form if certain words or acts in accordance with the offer that will indicate to the offeror that the offeree has accepted the offer.
In addition, the acceptance of the offer takes place when the letter of acceptance, properly addressed and the postage paid, is placed in the postbox or post office. So for Bishop (defendant), it obeys the rules of an offer and acceptance. For Armstrong Aggregates Company (plaintiff), they cannot change their offer by increasing the offer because Bishop had already accepted the offer and sent to this company on May 22nd. Meanwhile, the company did not communicate with Bishop about change the price. Therefore, this action is not valid and this company should still accept this offer at $180.
Chapter 10-Case 2
Summary: Habitation Apartments Ltd. borrowed $500,000 from their Good Times bank and secured the loan by way of a three-year mortgage on its apartment building. And the president of the corporation personally guaranteed repayment of the loan. Several years later, as a result of dispute between shareholders and a new president and Board of Directors were selected by the shareholders. As part of organization, they rearrange its mortgage loan with the bank. The bank agreed to extend the loan for a further three-year term but at a higher interest rate. A year later, as a result of tenant problems and a high vacancy rate, the corporation was unable to meet its mortgage payments and the mortgage went into default.
Analysis: This case should address in the Guarantee of Assumed Liability section. The guarantee always involves at least three parties: a principal debtor, a creditor, and the guarantor. The guarantor’s role in a guarantee agreement is to provide a promise of payment in the form of a contingent liability. In this case, Habitation Apartment Ltd and the bank are only two parties and they do not have formal writing document. Because of the unique relationship between the parties, the guarantee must be in writing to be enforceable.
For plaintiff: the Habitation Apartment Ltd should mortgage on its apartment building, because the president of the corporation guaranteed repayment of the loan and they should obey their contract. For defendant: before the contract come into effect, the leader of the bank should consider these problems, for example, the interest rate will be go up. They should tell the corporation this situation will happen and a condition that must be satisfied. In addition, they should as their original contract to conduct their liabilities no matter they rearrange the financing or increase their interest rate. The corporation of the apartment should return repayment as the original interest rate.
Chapter 13-Case 4
Summary: Hansen admired a sports car that Sports Motor Sales Ltd. wished to sell. Hansen informed the company salesman that he would buy the automobile if he could obtain a loan from the bank to cover part of the 17000 asking price. The salesman agreed to hold the car until Hansen could check with his bank. And Hansen discussed a loan with his bank manager and he said he would be prepared to make a 5000 loan through approval from the regional office. As a result, Hansen then entered into a written agreement with Sports Motor Sales Ltd. Then both parties signed the agreement. A few days later, the bank manager said he had problem with the loan approval. As a result, he could lend 4000 instead of 5000.
Analysis: According to Condition Precedent, when a condition precedent is agreed upon, the agreement is prepared and signed; only the performance is postponed pending the fulfillment of the condition. Once fulfilled, performance is necessary to affect discharge. If the condition is not met, it then has the effect of discharging both parties from performance. Because the loan approval has some problems, both parties did not fulfill the condition of the approval, so the Moto Sales Ltd. should charge for this mistakes. At the same time, a Material Alteration of the terms of existing agreement has the effect of discharging the agreement and replacing it with a new one containing the material alternation.
The alternation of the terms of the existing agreement must be of a significant nature before the contract will be discharged by the change. If the loan approval has some problems, so the bank can agree Hansen to discharge it and replace it with a new agreement. So the bank does not need to give himself 1000 short. In addition, according to Novation, the parties may also discharge an existing agreement by mutually agreeing to a change in the terms of the agreement or to a change in the parties to the agreement, so at least one party should agree to substitute or replace it.