Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
19 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Mailbox Rule |
Chain mails her written offer to Jerry. On day five, Jerry mails has excepted to Jane. On day six, Jane calls Jerry and tells him she is withdrawing the offer. Jane received Jerry's acceptance and on day seven. Despite the fact that Jane call the Jerry and withdrew the offer before she received the acceptance, she is bound by the contract because the mailbox rule states that Jerry's acceptance as affective when he mailed it. |
Page: 70 |
|
|
Consideration |
And I real estate transaction, the buyer makes an offer to buy property that the seller excepts. Dissecting this change of promises, we find consideration-the seller promises to do something (deliver the deed at a specific time to the buyer), and the buyer promises to do something (hey a specified sum of money for that deed). Conversely, if a seller merely promise to give his property as a gift, the sellers one-sided promise would walk in consideration and could be unenforceable. This is true because there was no bargained for exchange of promises between the two parties, or no consideration (only the seller is promising to do something). |
Page: 71 |
|
|
Reliance |
Your employer tells you that he will pay a pension when you retire. Relying on this statement, you retire at an age where obtaining new employment is difficult because you are expecting that pension income. Even though there may be no consideration in this example (arguably, only the employer agree to do something, which renders this a one sided agreement-see the discussion on consideration above) , courts my enforce the agreement as a contract to prevent an inequitable result (your reliance on your employers promise put you in a worse situation) |
Page: 73 |
|
|
Bilateral |
Bilateral real estate-related contracts into the real estate sales contracts, where the buyer promises to buy and the seller promises to sell property. |
Page: 75 |
|
|
Unilateral |
John lost his dog. Jon post a sign around town stating he will pay $100 to anyone who finds and returned his dog. John's offer may only be excepted by performance-that is, someone only has a contractual right to the $100 after they find and return the dog. |
Page: 75 |
|
|
Impossibility |
Two parties agreed to close on a house within a specified period of time. However, prior to closing, the house is destroyed by fire. Even though there is a valid sales contract in place, the buyer is no longer required to complete closing because it is impossible for the seller to perform (produce the home) |
Page: 91 |
|
|
Recession |
The federal truth and lending act guarantees a recession. And some financial transactions, as do some state time-share and condominium laws. |
Page: 91 |
|
|
Net Listing |
And owner tells his real estate agent that he wants $600 a month the rental of an apartment. The owner agrees to let the agent rent it or whatever if we can get, keeping everything over $600 as his commission. This agreement is known as a net listing, which is illegal in most states. |
Page: 83 |
|
|
Notice |
If a dirt road runs across the corner of an empty lot, they prospective purchaser is expected to inquire as to the possibility of an existing easement through the lot, even though he may not have constructive notice of such an easement because it may not show up in the public record. The existence of the dirt road provides a prospective purchaser of and "actual notice" that someone may have a claim to part of the property. |
Page: 80 |
|
|
Monetary Damages |
A builder agrees to build a home for $100,000, pursuant to a purchase agreement with a buyer. The buyer defaults before construction begins and there is no provision of liquidated damages in the contract. If the home would have caused the builder $90,000 to construct, the builders monetary damages would only be $10,000, or the amount of profit he would have made from building the house. |
Page: 78 |
|
|
Assignable/Non-Assignable |
Contracts for a personal service, such as a contract or a specific real estate broker to sell your property (listing agreement) are not assignable. However, most other real estate contracts, such as mortgage contracts, trust deeds, contracts for sale, lease contracts, and options are assignable unless the parties agree otherwise in the contract. |
Page: 77 |
|
|
Timing |
If a sales contract provides A specific closing time and date, and further states that "Time is of the essence "Ben both parties must be prepared to perform at the time and date specified or the contract will be breached and may terminate. |
Page:76 |
|
|
Condition |
A homeowner may condition payment for painting his house on his satisfaction with the paint job. Also, an insurance company may condition payment of a claim on the claimant furnishing Proof of the loss. In these examples, there is a valid contract, but one or another party is not obligated to perform unless or until the condition or conditions are satisfied. |
Page: 76 |
|
|
Conditions |
Conditions that parties may impose include the following (1) a lessee may operate the leased premises as a restaurant, provided that he first obtains the necessary parking variance; or (2) A buyer agrees to buy the property, contingent upon obtaining the necessary furnishings. |
Page: 76 |
|
|
Illegality |
Contracts for murder or contracts to purchase illegal goods or services are voided and unenforceable. |
Page:74 |
|
|
1: Mistake |
A subdivision developer and a buyer sign a sales contract on a locked in the subdivision. Later, it turns out that the developer honestly thought they were contracting for a Lot A the buyer honestly thought they were contracting for Lot B. If the two can resolve their differences, fine. If not, the contract is voidable by either party because there was no meeting of the minds. Note that this mistake is 1) Mutual (both mistakenly identified the property); 2) unintentional; and 3) Material (specifying the correct piece of property is at the heart of the contract because all property is unique). |
Age: 74 |
|
|
2: Mistake |
Bob the blaster around a blasting and excavation company. Bob signs a contract to purchase property located on the main drag of Acme City. Bob intends to use his new business location to test blasting acquit meant before rolling it out into the field. After signing the contract, Bob discovers fat blasting activities are illegal within the city limits of Acme. Assuming no fraud or misinterpretation by the seller, Bob's ignorance of the law does NOT resultant either a void or voidable contract and is NOT an example of mistake. |
Page: 74 |
|
|
Fraud in the Factum |
Sarah Jones is contracted by sales person from the heavenly habitat subdivision and told that she has just won a two bedroom house. Sarah loves the house and when she is asked to sign a letter of endorsement of the subdivision, she does so gladly. Later, Sarah finds out that rather than actually winning a house, she merely won a chance to win a house. Furthermore, the letter of endorsement she signed is actually a contract to buy a house if and when she fails to win one. Because Sarah never intended to enter into a contract, and because she was intentionally deceived, this contract is void. |
Page: 72 |
|
|
Misinterpretation |
Consider the representation, "this house is really build well, and the foundation is practically solid". A year later, the house settles so badly that extensive repairs are needed to correct the problem. Whether someone has made it a misinterpretation turns on who made the original statement: (1) if a seller made The statement, he or she would not likely be liable if, at the time the statement was made, The foundation appeared to be in good shape-sellers are not expected to have special knowledge about construction; (2) if a sales person who made the statement, he or she may be liable for damages and could have their license to spend it or revoked (even if the misinterpretation was innocent) if a court concludes that they should have known about the faulty foundation, or should have found out about the faulty foundation before making the statement; (3) however, if the builder made this statement, he would likely be liable for misinterpretation or even fraud. |
Page: 73 |
