Business Law Assigment

Notes:
The type of expected answers is explanation and arguing for all parties
involved in both study cases. It is expected that students rely on theory
taught in the classroom and to specify on what grounds they argue for
the parties.
Points are awarded for
1. Correct arguing for the sides
2. Correct relating to the theory presented in class and
3. Structure of the answer.

1. Please read the following case and answer the questions. The
answer should not exceed 700 words. (5p)

Case 1
The case of Domingo v. Mitchell, 257 S.W. 3d 34 has all the elements
of a drama gone bad. But more importantly, it broadly discusses the
elements of a contract. How many of us have joined lottery pools,
hoping to strike it rich. Well, that was the case for Betty Domingo and
Brenda Mitchell. Betty and Brenda were friends and coworkers who
participated in a lottery pool at work—the Texas Lottery. They began
this practice sometime in early 2004(deci acest obicei are radacini
inca din anul 2004 era deci o intelegere de a lor de lunga durata)
where Betty and Brenda pooled their money to purchase tickets and
would split all the winnings equally.(obiceiul consta in faptul ca pun
banii amandoua si impart castigurile) Sometimes Brenda would
advance Betty’s portion, where Betty would promptly repay her.
Brenda received an e-mail from a coworker, Cindy, on March 9, 2006,
asking whether she wanted to join a lottery group. Brenda agreed.
With other coworkers, Cindy created LGroup, a Texas Limited
Partnership. Later that month, Cindy called a meeting and advised the
group that if they knew of other interested parties, they could invite
them to the meeting. Betty did not participate in the March meeting or
March lottery. However, she claims that Brenda invited her to
participate in the April lottery drawing. Betty agreed to participate and
asked Brenda how much money she needed to contribute. Brenda
offered to cover her share and be reimbursed. On March 30, 2006, a
meeting took place where the group determined the current members,
the contributions, and the numbers for the next lottery. It was
determined that each member would contribute $17.00. Brenda
contributed her amount, but did not have enough to cover Betty’s
amount. Of course, on April 29, 2006, one of the tickets from the
group won totaling over $20 million—the cash value option. Betty
wanted her share of the winnings. Brenda refused. After consulting
an attorney, Betty filed a breach of contract action against the Limited
Partnership and Brenda. Brenda responded by basically stating that
she never made an offer; there was no valid acceptance; there was no
meeting of the minds; and there was no consideration.(ba da exista
uzante intre ele)
In her lawsuit, Betty contended just the opposite. To avoid a trial,
Brenda filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court
granted. Betty appealed. The Court of Appeals analyzed the elements
required for a valid contract. As the court stated, for a contract to
exist, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. The
contract could be oral. In determining whether a contract existed, the
court looked to how the parties interacted and communicated, using an
objective standard of review. The court then analyzed what constituted
an offer, acceptance and consideration. The court also focused on
whether there was a “meeting of the minds,” which can be implied
from the facts and circumstances of the transaction (as opposed to
express). Brenda argued that they never reached a price or agreed on
the numbers to submit. The court stated that the price could be
reasonably implied. After witness testimony was presented in the
lower court, the Court of Appeals agreed with Betty that “her friend”
Brenda had agreed to advance her share of the lottery pool, that their
past conduct confirmed this and as such.

Questions for Analysis

 1. How would you rule this case if you were the judge?
Based on the data provided, I find no motive not to agree with
the Judge’s decision.

2. What would have happend if Brenda told Betty that she would
have had to advance her own share to participate? Why or why
not?
Although in the past between Betty and Brenda evidence of a general
practice accepted by both parties exists , this bilateral custom wouldn’t
have matter anymore in the last winning Lottery pool .Betty needs to
deposit her own money , thus binding herself to the contract , and giving
her explicit consent. The oral agreement to cover Betty's share of the
lottery tickets was a debt that Brenda owed the LGroup. Brenda's
argument presupposes that she informed the LGroup that Betty had
been invited to play for the April 2006 drawings. The evidence
however, showed that she did not inform the members of the LGroup
that in March 2006 she had invited Domingo to participate in the April
2006 drawings. Hence, there could be no debt owed by Betty to the
LGroup. Because Betty's financial obligation was her contractual
obligation to reimburse Brenda and not a promise to answer for the debt
of another, the agreement did not violate the Statute of Frauds.

3. What if the Limited Partnership had not offered to invite other

members to participate, would Brenda have been responsible
for Betty’s share? Explain your answer.
I see a custom betwen Betty and Brenda regarding covering the initial
payment of each other to enter lottery pools , but I don’t see a custom
that binds one of the participants to enrol the other in specific Lottery
pool groups.I think that explicit consent must be given in order to join
such groups.

2. Please read the following case and answer the questions. The
answer should not exceed 700 words. (5p)

Case2
Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891) involves the
promise of an uncle to his nephew to pay him $5,000 if he refrained
from drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards
until he reached 21 years old. His uncle, William E. Story, Sr. made
this agreement in front of a room of people to which his nephew
Willie agreed. When Willie turned 21, he wrote his uncle letting him
know that he had performed his part of the agreement. On February 6,
1875, Uncle William wrote Willie the following letter:
Dear Nephew,
Your letter of the 31st came to hand all right, saying that you lived up
to the promise made to me several years ago. I have no doubt but what
you have, for which you shall have five thousand dollars, as I
promised you. I had the money in the bank the day you were twenty-
one years old that I intended for you, and you shall have the money
certain. Now Willie, I do not intend to interfere with this money in
any way till I think you are capable of taking of it, and the sooner that
time comes the better it will please me. I would have very much to
have you start out in some adventure that you thought all right, and
lose this money in one year. The first five thousand dollars I got
together cost me a heap of hard work. . . .Willie, you are twenty-one,
and you have many things to learn yet. This money you have earned
much easier that I did, besides acquiring good habits at the same time,
and you are quite welcome to the money.
Hope you will make good use of it. I was ten long years getting this
together after I was your age. Now, hoping this will be satisfactory.
Truly yours, W.E. Story
P.S. You can consider this money on interest.
Willie actually consented to his uncle’s terms. Sadly, Uncle William
died on January 29, 1887 without paying Willie his money (and
interest). Willie sued Uncle William’s estate. The issue that the court
was faced with was whether Willie had a valid contract with Uncle
William and whether that contract created a valid debt for which the
estate was indebted.

Questions for Analysis

1. What was the consideration between Uncle William and his
nephew Willie? What would be your reasoning? (considearation
e obiectul derivat al contractului)
2. Assume the same facts as in the case, but that Uncle William
died before Willie turned 21 years old. Was there consideration
for the promise?
3. What if Uncle William had stated at the party that he would
give $5,000 to Willie when he turned 21 years old and then died
one week after Willie’s 21st birthday? Is the promise
enforceable in this case?