Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Complications and Quiz | Uncle's Promises | Uncle's Promise Challenge Part 2
Photo by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash
September 14, 2020
Contract Law: From
Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X)
Unit 1 | Complications and Quiz | Uncle’s Promises | Uncle’s Promise
Challenge Part 2
Instructor Charles Fried, Beneficial
Professor of Law:
My re-written lecture notes for Unit 1, Complications and Quiz – Uncle’s Promises – Uncle’s Promise Challenge Part 2 hyperlink: My Rewritten Uncle's Promise Challenge Part 2 Hyperlink
The Honorable Judge had decided in Hamer verses Sidway case was an extraordinary exception in a coordinated bargain-for-exchanges offer litigation. In which, the Honorable Judge had enforced Hamer (the Plaintiff [the nephew]) payment of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) paid from Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) estate was a contract obligation and, not a promise to make a gift. And, the Honorable Judge determination was based on his applied scientific law application analyzes in Hamer verses Sidway case through a tests, textbooks or statutes in a prima facie legal claims by means of evaluating contract law principals from the Hamer verses Sidway case are as follows:
1. intent
to create a legal relations? The Honorable Judge said, yes, in
the Hamer verses Sidway case does create a formal legal relation intent;
2. was both
sides serious? The Honorable Judge said, yes, in the Hamer verses Sidway case both parties
were serious about their coordinated bargain-for-exchanges
offer promise contract to one (1) another;
3. was it a legal and moral coordinated bargain-for-exchanges? The Honorable Judge said, yes, their coordinated bargain-for-exchanges
was a legal and moral actions;
4. was it a gift or bargain? The Honorable Judge said, in the Hamer verses Sidway case was an official bargain which led to both parties offered contract and, not a promise to make a gift.
Furthermore, the Honorable Judge had decided, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) official coordinated bargain-for-exchange which led to his contract to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) in the amount of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) payment offer was indeed a coordinated bargain-for-exchanges between two (2) parties. If Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) does not:
1. drink any alcoholic beverages such as, gin or whiskey;
2. use any illegal drugs or
controlled substances such as, marijuana, MDMA or prescription opioids;
3. speak any vulgar or profanity languages; and
4. do any gambling,
before his twenty first birthday, as a real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments counter contract offer exchange to Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]).
So, the Honorable Judge said Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) contract offered to Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) was a very good and wise decision in
order to change Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) life to become a better
person in our society and, Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) did not have to contract offered Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) anything. As a result,
Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) must have care very much about Hamer (the
Plaintiff [his nephew]) future enough to create a formal legal
relation intent with Hamer (the Plaintiff
[his nephew]); if, Hamer (the Plaintiff [his nephew]) abides by his uncle agreements in order to earned
Sidway (the Defendant [the uncle]) two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars
($250,000) contract payment.
[1]
[1]
Charles Fried, edX, Unit 1 – Complications and
Quiz – Uncle’s Promise – Uncle’s Promise Challenge Part 2,
Comments