Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) | Unit 1: Complications and Quiz | Uncle's Promises | Uncle's Promise Challenge Part 4

 Photo by Melinda Gimpel on Unsplash

September 16, 2020 

Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract (HLS2X) 

Unit 1 |  Complications and Quiz  | Uncle’s Promises | Uncle’s Promise Challenge Part 4 

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 4 hyperlink:  My Rewritten Uncle's Promise Challenge Part 4 Hyperlink

Well, Professor Fried said, the answer is no, Sidway (the Plaintiff [the uncle]) could not sue Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]) over their coordinated bargain-for-exchanges offer agreements which led to their breach of contract. 

Can you guess why not, Sidway (the Plaintiff [the uncle]) could not sue Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]) because Hamer (the Defendant [the nephew]) never promise Sidway (the Plaintiff [his uncle]) that he would not drink, smoke, swear or gamble. 

And, yes, Sidway (the Plaintiff [the uncle]) had made those promises to ensure a positive outcome in Hamer’s (the Defendant’s [his nephew]) life, if Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]) did not drink, smoke, swear or gamble than Sidway (the Plaintiff [the uncle]) will give Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]) in the amount of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for his official bargain-for-exchange offer. If Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]) abided by Sidway’s (the Plaintiff’s [the uncle]) agreements, in not to drink, smoke, swear or gamble. 

Hamer (the Defendant [the nephew]) did abide by Sidway (the Plaintiff [his uncle]) coordinated official bargain-for-exchanges contract offer for one (1) year but Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]) did not carry through in completing Sidway (the Plaintiff [the uncle]) real cooperation in trusts, promises, and commitments abided agreements which was enough to make it a bargain for Hamer (the Defendant [the nephew]) short time participations into his uncle abided agreements in a[n] actions and behaviors. After, Hamer (the Defendant [the nephew]) had defaulted on Sidway (the Plaintiff [his uncle]) coordinated official bargain-for-exchanges contract offer which automatically reset, revoked, cancelled, rescinded, terminated or dismissed any of Hamer (the Defendant [the nephew]) prior efforts participations or actions in filling Sidway (the Plaintiff [his uncle]) abided agreements to a present or current (point in time) litigations meaning Sidway (the Plaintiff [the uncle]) could not sue Hamer (the Defendant [his nephew]).   

In addition, our Judiciary Court System[s] and Honorable Judge[s] will have decided in the Hamer verses Sidway case was enough to be considered as, a quid pro quo agreements which means “one transfer is thus contingent upon some transfer from the other party in a neutral agreements.” Therefore, in the Hamer verses Sidway case was an extraordinary exception litigation which had a real coordinated bargain-for-exchanges offer and, contract agreements that passes all four (4) contract law principles in an applied scientific law application analyzes through a tests, textbooks or statutes from a prima facie legal claim’s evaluations.