Aslakson V. Home Saving Association Case Study

761 Words 4 Pages
The Aslakson v. Home Saving Association case was very interesting. The Aslakson family joined into a conditional sales contract in order to buy a mobile home. A conditional sales contract is a when an individual signs a contract which allows the individuals to take the property, in this case a mobile home, but will not receive the title until the buyer receive the full purchase amount. Four years after signing the sales contract the Aslaksons decided to join into a purchase agreement, which allows them to sell the mobile home they are purchasing. In order to enter into the purchase agreement, the applicants had to go through the Upper Northwest Payment Plan, UNPP, and pass their credit check. The first applicant was denied due to their …show more content…
The lawsuit took place in Minnesota Supreme Court. The courtlistener.com informs us that the issue within this case is figuring out did the trial court err in determining, as a matter of law, that appellants ' claims of respondents ' wrongful interference with contracts were invalid. After reviewing the case you will discover that there was no valid contract between appellants and either of the two prospective buyers. After doing research, there are five possible controversies within this case. Those three possible controversies are existence in contract, alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract, his intentional procurement of its breach, without justification, and damages resulting therefrom. When the Alsakson signed the purchase agreement contract, they also agree to the rules and regulations that came with the contract. The purchase agreement contract included UNPP, which means the Alsakson family have to follow the UNPP rules and regulations as well. So the Alsakson basically lost their case because of this reason. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated, “Justification is the most common affirmative defense to an …show more content…
Cargill, Inc. Al Sternburg was doing his normal business with the Mogans which was 50,000 bushels. Later he was offered 85,000 bushels for the same price he paid for the 50,000 bushels he normally gets. Sternburg informed Alex Mogan, the person who was trying sell the 85,000 bushels, that Cargill, Inc. had to make that decision. Alex continue calling Sternburg to see if Cargill, Inc. accepted the deal and he informed Alex that Cargill, Inc. declined. On July 5, 1986, David C. Mogan wrote a letter to Cargill, Inc. demanding compensation for breach of a contract to purchase 85,000 bushels, claiming the grain was sold on May 23, 1986. Cargill, Inc. responded to this letter on July 28, 1986, advising David C. Mogan that it was Cargill, Inc. 's position that there was no contract (courtlistener.com, 2016). The article goes on to inform us that the purpose of this court case was to introduce a uniform statute of limitations for sales contracts, thus eliminating the jurisdictional variations and providing needed relief for concerns doing business on a nationwide scale whose contracts have heretofore been governed by several different periods of limitation depending upon the state in which the transaction occurred (courtlistener.com, 2016). The perception I gather was the understanding of arbitration through a contractual standpoint. Contractual is defined as a lawful association or linkage between contracting parties through a

Related Documents