Law Assignment #1 Contracts



Memorandum

From: John Doe

Date: December 15th 2012

Issue

The issue in this is whether or not Ms. Vivian will successfully be able to sue Mr. Bernie for not refunding her $1000 deposit on the basis of the contract which had no mutuality of consideration. Since Ms. Vivian had wished to purchase Bernie's 2006 Ford for a sum of $12,500 and she had paid $1,000 in advance. They contracted on Vivian paying Bernie the remaining sum, by the 31st of March.

Rule

In the case of Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009) it can be observed the mutuality of contract at the time when there are promises on both for the benefits by considerations of each parties even though they have different clauses and are dependent on the actions of each side. It can be said that none of the parties are bound if both aren't bound. So if one is not bound for any action for the promises' consideration, the lack of mutuality of obligation exists, leaving the other side also unbound.

So it can be said that in has to be originally enforceable if at all. In the case of the seller failing to abide by the contact, he will become default enabling the buyer to at his exclusive and sole remedy claim the contract void and take the deposit back from the Seller, releasing both of them.

In the case of American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904), if promise of consideration for one side is the other sides' promise, there has to be complete mutuality of engagement, giving both sides the right to hold on another for a positive agreement. Both sides have to be bound or else none of them are bound. If one side makes promise, ...