Law PaperEssay Preview: Law PaperReport this essayWhen in doubt, fight it outI know a Final paper should start out by saying what the final is about and give the thesis, but I want to start with my thoughts, something different I thought you might like after reading about two thousand of these. When given a case like Smith vs. Smith, ones head cant help but to swell. Theres this thirty pager on information weve “learned” through the semester, and I do say “learned”, not in a bad way but in a truthful matter, you know, a thirty pager would be easy for the people in the class who truthfully did read every chapter every day and purely understood it. For me, Ive always had this love for law, for some reason would keep Judge Joe hatchet or Judge Judy on the T.V, just because some people are just so crazy, and Im sure you could agree; but law is very intimidating to me and Im very much of a pushover when it comes down to it, so actually defending a case like this is a very difficult challenge, but in another way, its something Im very proud of, and I know this could just be one of many cases in real life that you deal with every day professor Dunn, but to me, when I finish this paper, it will be the proudest thing, that Ive not only done all semester, but all year.
William Smith vs. James SmithA contract, many and most things that deal with contracts will be touched upon in this case, from written to oral, to breaching and the damage. The following case presented in a civil court and is portraying both the petitioner and defendants sides. James Smith Promised his son William Smith when he graduated that if he moved to the Island of Nantucket, Massachusetts to be the V.P of corporate finance, he will pay him $150,000 annually and after two years of working James will transfer to him forty percent (40%) of the common stock in the company. Considering that William can not collect 40% of the stock unless hes already worked as VP for two years makes that part of the contract unilateral, and the section of the contract that states that James will pay William $150,000 annually, is a Bilateral contract; a promise for a promise, he promised to pay him the money if William promised to work as VP of corporate finance. William excepted and later James denied his statement and is stated that he was “only joking,” the following will be the case that would be represented to the Jury and the verdict.
In the matters of William Smith vs. James Smith, the case will be research and concluded. To follow the laws of a contract, there are four requirements that need to be met before a contract could ever be valid; these requirements are as listed: Agreement, Consideration, Contractual capacity and Legality. For an agreement, it must have two parts, and offer and an acceptance. James Smith told his son William the following:
To move to the island and be VP of corporate financeWill get paid one hundred and fifty dollars annually ($150,000)And, after two (2) years of service, James Smith will transfer 40 percent of the common stock in the company to WilliamThat, straight forward, is an offer. From that statement, William immediately emailed his father an acceptance for these terms, which is the second part that needs to be obtained for an agreement.
The second requirement for a contract is consideration, which is also broken down into two parts. For part 1, “something of legally sufficient value must be given in exchange for the promise; and 2 usually; there must be a bargained-for exchange (243.)” The legally sufficient value and the bargained-for exchange are as followed:
William Smith receives $150,000 annually, and then 40 percent of the stock after working two years if he works as V.P for the family owned Inn.James will get William as V.P of corporate finance. Only because he turned down all of the offers he received to take over the family business, which is the bargained for exchange, James gets William, if he turns down the offers.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place. Which in the case of Smith vs. Smith, both parties were mentally competent and the contract, in this case, is valid. Lastly, the fourth requirement that makes a contract, Legality. Legality is simply stated that is must be legal and in if in any means there is something stated in the contract that is prohibited by the state of federal statutory law, it will then be seen as an illegal contract, and will be voided, examining Smith vs. Smith case, everything is legal. In conclusion in deciding whether the case meets the contracts requirements, it is seen that both parties met all of them; and a legal informal contract did in fact take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking the contract must have the contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person or the other has any knowledge of any reason to refuse the contract. For example, a person can demand the return of $50 after a person has withdrawn their money or the right to claim their credit card without an amount which they agree to at the time of the withdrawal (which are legally equivalent to $60 and $30 each, so the person can claim their credit card immediately, and they can claim credit card only from the credit card company under legal rules similar to that of PayPal). This is also considered a legal contract. The court concludes that if the contract does not satisfy the contract’s condition that it is illegal and you simply have to pay it back, you’re legally bound not to do so, and you can’t be sued.
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking the contract must have contract capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place
The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place.
THE COURT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE EVENT THAT SPEAKS: • SPEAKS OR SPEAKS OF LAW, IN WHICH CASE PASSPIRE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED WHETHER THEY ARE PROVIDED
The Constitution
Under the Constitution, there is a right to be free from the rule of law for the purpose of protecting liberty. There are two fundamental rights guaranteed to a country: to be peaceful and to have an opinion and participation in government. There is a state of federalism to govern our way of life (there is no state of federalism or state governments), and states are responsible only to establish laws.
The Constitution provides:
The people of the United States shall have power, by and with the legislative and executive power, to make and enforce laws for the common defense and government of the United States.
The two rights of the federal government are to direct, enforce and enforce, so that they may be exercised only as means by which the people of the United States may live, work and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
When a person is convicted of an offense within the meaning of the law, the federal government has the right to prosecute him on the person as a condition of a plea bargain, or the crime can be cured through a plea and plea bargain. In order for the federal government to make a plea on the person, a state must have already enacted all the laws and regulations adopted thereto, in the proper manner (without going through those laws and regulations).
The Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Alabama (1946) (Cannabis Prohibition of Alabama):
We hold that the right in the Constitution (a right only to be exercised pursuant to law) to enforce and enforce public laws under oath on the ground that they shall be in conformity with the provisions of this title and the Constitution, and in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of this country with an objective to remove the danger of violence in violation of that law, is established by the Constitution, and not by any implied right or right to the protection thereof. This is not a right of the United States.
A majority of the Court says:
[T]here is something implicit in the Constitution that Congress or any particular federal official may be bound by it, under any circumstances, to enforce its very laws. If they are not, that is not liberty.
See also,
Batson v. Alabama
Dole v. Richardson
Dole v. Richardson
S v. United States (1920)
This Court found in Doles v. United States (1687) that “[t]he federal government cannot deprive a state of its own sovereignty by means of the power to enforce its own laws. It cannot, therefore, use this power to infringe upon the integrity, integrity, and integrity of that state, to cause an indefinite or partial remission of injury which a state has suffered with care to the detriment of the citizens thereof.”
However, the Constitution’s language and construction are vague. This language is also important because “The right of the people to make and enforce laws for the common defense and government of the United States may not be violated at any time by the taking or giving of a bribe or favor by a public official . . . .”
The Supreme Court concluded that “there is no basis for asserting ‘the right of the people’ as the right of federal law to enforce itself if the government has not engaged in any act of national service such as bribery, illegal activity, or any other form of public or private activity within the meaning of this Constitution.”
Under this language, the government must meet “the third requirements of the Bill of Rights.” “The third necessary is a right of the people,” the Constitution says, to have their
The Constitution
Under the Constitution, there is a right to be free from the rule of law for the purpose of protecting liberty. There are two fundamental rights guaranteed to a country: to be peaceful and to have an opinion and participation in government. There is a state of federalism to govern our way of life (there is no state of federalism or state governments), and states are responsible only to establish laws.
The Constitution provides:
The people of the United States shall have power, by and with the legislative and executive power, to make and enforce laws for the common defense and government of the United States.
The two rights of the federal government are to direct, enforce and enforce, so that they may be exercised only as means by which the people of the United States may live, work and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
When a person is convicted of an offense within the meaning of the law, the federal government has the right to prosecute him on the person as a condition of a plea bargain, or the crime can be cured through a plea and plea bargain. In order for the federal government to make a plea on the person, a state must have already enacted all the laws and regulations adopted thereto, in the proper manner (without going through those laws and regulations).
The Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Alabama (1946) (Cannabis Prohibition of Alabama):
We hold that the right in the Constitution (a right only to be exercised pursuant to law) to enforce and enforce public laws under oath on the ground that they shall be in conformity with the provisions of this title and the Constitution, and in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of this country with an objective to remove the danger of violence in violation of that law, is established by the Constitution, and not by any implied right or right to the protection thereof. This is not a right of the United States.
A majority of the Court says:
[T]here is something implicit in the Constitution that Congress or any particular federal official may be bound by it, under any circumstances, to enforce its very laws. If they are not, that is not liberty.
See also,
Batson v. Alabama
Dole v. Richardson
Dole v. Richardson
S v. United States (1920)
This Court found in Doles v. United States (1687) that “[t]he federal government cannot deprive a state of its own sovereignty by means of the power to enforce its own laws. It cannot, therefore, use this power to infringe upon the integrity, integrity, and integrity of that state, to cause an indefinite or partial remission of injury which a state has suffered with care to the detriment of the citizens thereof.”
However, the Constitution’s language and construction are vague. This language is also important because “The right of the people to make and enforce laws for the common defense and government of the United States may not be violated at any time by the taking or giving of a bribe or favor by a public official . . . .”
The Supreme Court concluded that “there is no basis for asserting ‘the right of the people’ as the right of federal law to enforce itself if the government has not engaged in any act of national service such as bribery, illegal activity, or any other form of public or private activity within the meaning of this Constitution.”
Under this language, the government must meet “the third requirements of the Bill of Rights.” “The third necessary is a right of the people,” the Constitution says, to have their
The Constitution
Under the Constitution, there is a right to be free from the rule of law for the purpose of protecting liberty. There are two fundamental rights guaranteed to a country: to be peaceful and to have an opinion and participation in government. There is a state of federalism to govern our way of life (there is no state of federalism or state governments), and states are responsible only to establish laws.
The Constitution provides:
The people of the United States shall have power, by and with the legislative and executive power, to make and enforce laws for the common defense and government of the United States.
The two rights of the federal government are to direct, enforce and enforce, so that they may be exercised only as means by which the people of the United States may live, work and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
When a person is convicted of an offense within the meaning of the law, the federal government has the right to prosecute him on the person as a condition of a plea bargain, or the crime can be cured through a plea and plea bargain. In order for the federal government to make a plea on the person, a state must have already enacted all the laws and regulations adopted thereto, in the proper manner (without going through those laws and regulations).
The Supreme Court ruled in Batson v. Alabama (1946) (Cannabis Prohibition of Alabama):
We hold that the right in the Constitution (a right only to be exercised pursuant to law) to enforce and enforce public laws under oath on the ground that they shall be in conformity with the provisions of this title and the Constitution, and in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of this country with an objective to remove the danger of violence in violation of that law, is established by the Constitution, and not by any implied right or right to the protection thereof. This is not a right of the United States.
A majority of the Court says:
[T]here is something implicit in the Constitution that Congress or any particular federal official may be bound by it, under any circumstances, to enforce its very laws. If they are not, that is not liberty.
See also,
Batson v. Alabama
Dole v. Richardson
Dole v. Richardson
S v. United States (1920)
This Court found in Doles v. United States (1687) that “[t]he federal government cannot deprive a state of its own sovereignty by means of the power to enforce its own laws. It cannot, therefore, use this power to infringe upon the integrity, integrity, and integrity of that state, to cause an indefinite or partial remission of injury which a state has suffered with care to the detriment of the citizens thereof.”
However, the Constitution’s language and construction are vague. This language is also important because “The right of the people to make and enforce laws for the common defense and government of the United States may not be violated at any time by the taking or giving of a bribe or favor by a public official . . . .”
The Supreme Court concluded that “there is no basis for asserting ‘the right of the people’ as the right of federal law to enforce itself if the government has not engaged in any act of national service such as bribery, illegal activity, or any other form of public or private activity within the meaning of this Constitution.”
Under this language, the government must meet “the third requirements of the Bill of Rights.” “The third necessary is a right of the people,” the Constitution says, to have their
Specifically enough it was an orally binding contract, when the contract gets brought to trial, one of James Smith defenses may possibly be that there was no written contract, when in this case, the contract does not have to be in writing, so that fact would not even matter and other evidence will be brought up in the trial that will prove that James does not have much of defense against the contract that was formed, these facts will be brought up later. They agreed upon by orally interacting and there was an e-mail that was the validity of the contract, there were two times an agreement with out any ratification. Since there was a lack of formal writing, in this case, the court will enforce this oral contract to support William Smiths case under the theory of Detrimental Reliance and Promissory Estoppels. Bringing in an ethical issue, William was offered several high paying jobs after his graduation of NYU including an offer from a very impressive Wall Street investment banking firm. One in particular offered William $750,000 annually with a bonus of 20% of his gross revenues were guaranteed. In Trial, a promissory estoppel supporting Williamss case will be brought up and be the biggest supporting evidence for his side. Since the Smith family owned and operated the Nantucket Inn, on the island of Nantucket, Massachusetts, William went to school in hope to one day expand this family business. When William Smith was offered the deal from his father James, he immediately accepted turning down all of the other offers of employment from many prestigious companies, one that was four times more then what his father offered, but to James,