BUSINESS LAW Essay Example

  • Category:
    Law
  • Document type:
    Essay
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    2
  • Words:
    758

STYLE: Louisa W. Hamer, Appellant, v. Franklin Sidway, as Executor, etc.., Respondent

COURT: Court of Appeals of New York

CITATION: 124 N.Y, 538; 27 N.E. 256; 1891 N.Y. LEXIS 1396

FACTS: Louisa W. Hamer was promised by William E. Story, the uncle that if he refrained from taking alcohol, smoking, and gambling by playing cards and billiards until he attained the age of twenty-one years he would be paid $5000. Louisa met the agreement, and when he attained the age agreed upon, he wrote to the uncle stating he had done as agreed and was due the sum. His uncle replied by admitting the agreement and the performance and stated the money was in the bank. He proposed to Louisa he hold the money until he responsible enough to use it and would be paid with interest. William E. Story died without any sum that was due. Louisa presented the entitlement to the executor which was rejected. Louisa filed a suit against the executor at the General Term of Supreme Court. The judgment was entered for Louisa at trial but was later reversed. Louisa appealed to the Courts of Appeal of New York.

ISSUE: Was the promise to forbear a legal right in return for a promise a sufficient consideration to support the contract?

HOLDING: Yes

LAW/EXPLANATION: It is of importance that the letter shows the intention on the uncle part that he is a trustee. At the time of writing the letter, the uncle was indebted to the nephew, and he went ahead and recognized the situation (Mason, Alpheus, and Grier). . The language in the letter indicated that the money had been set aside, and Louisa had earned it and would be paid when he is responsible enough together with interest. Certainly, the uncle intended to assure the nephew that the money was set apart for him and would not be used for other commitments until he was responsible enough.

JUDGMENT: The order was overturned, and the ruling of the Special Term acknowledged, with the cost paid out from the estate.

DISSENT: None in this case.

STUDENT OPINION: The appeals court was correct to reverse the order and affirm the judgment of the Special Term.

STYLE: R. Edwin Powell, et al., Respondents vs. MVE Holdings, Inc., et al., Appellants, MVE Investors, LLC, et al., Defendants

COURT: Courts of Appeals of Minnesota

CITATION: 626 N.W.2d 451; 2001 Minn. App. LEXIS 517; 144 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P59, 415

FACTS: R. Edwin Powell was CAIRE Inc. a subsidiary for Holdings CEO and president from 1993 to January 23, 1997. He was also a minority shareholder in Holdings. In 1996 Holdings and CAIRE were acquired by MVE Investors through the purchase of shares of three retiring shareholders by paying $125,456 per share, but Powell declined. Due to financial impediments, David O’ Halloran, the CEO and president for Holding met Powell to relieve him of his duties but chose to resign. They agreed to a termination pay but differed on the disposition terms for the stock held by Powell. Powell would testify that the O’Halloran had approved to acquire the stock at the price that the shareholders who retired were paid at recapitalization date. O’Halloran would later quip he had lost support from the board, and the deal was off. Powell brought an action against holding for breach of contract at the district court. The court approved, and Powell was awarded $3,445,887.20 for the stock and ordered the shares be transferred to Holdings. Holdings appealed claiming they had no authority to buy Powell stock.

ISSUES: were the findings of the district court incorrect in establishing that O’Halloran have authority to act Holding behalf for the redemption of Powell stock?

HOLDING: NO

LAW/EXPLANATION: The scope of the review encompass determining whether the findings of the district court were erroneous. Holdings posits that O’Halloran had a null authority to offer Powell an agreement on the redemption of the stock held. The case of Duluth Herald & News Tribune v. Plymouth Optical Co., the principal, is not only bound by the actual authority of the agents but also the apparently delegated authority (Chen, Mindy). Therefore O’Halloran had an apparent authority that would enable him to enter into a stock redemption agreement.

JUDGMENT: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

DISSENT: None in this case.

STUDENT OPINION: I agree with the court decision. There was a valid contract that supported the consideration.

References

Mason, Alpheus Thomas, and Grier Stephenson. American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge, 2015.

Chen-Wishart, Mindy. Contract law. Oxford University Press, 2012.