Business Law NOV11 Sec C Week 2 Assignment Prepared By: Kathleen Clayton Prepared for Professor: Jerry Luejian

Keller Graduate School of Management November 6, 2011

Case Problem Chapter 14 14.2 Real Property Briggs v. Sackett

Robert Briggs and his wife entered into an oral contract with Winfield and Emma Sackett. The Sackett's agreed to pay the arrearages on the loan and agreed to make the future payments on the property for the Briggs' mortgage. The Sacketts moved into the home and did pay the mortgage for fifteen years. And now after doing so Mr Briggs has filed an action to void the oral contract as in violation of the Statue of Frauds and evict the Sacketts from the house. And based on the law under The Statue of Frauds one party can raise a defense to the enforcement of the contract by the other party. But, if an oral contract that should have been in writing under the Statue of Frauds is already executed neither party can seek to rescind the contract on the ground of noncompliance with the Statue of Frauds. So after looking at the law under the Statue of Frauds the Briggs can not rescind the oral agreement due to noncompliance with the Statue of Frauds cause it was already executed.

Case Problem Chapter 16 16.10 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Bear Sterns & Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) sued Bear Stearns & Company, an investment brokerage firm, for interfering with its long-term contract for the purchase of hydroelectric power from Placer County Water Agency (Agency). It alleged intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and attempted inducement of breach of contract. The law states that a party to a contract may sue any third person who intentionally interferes with the contract and causes that party injury. The third party does not have to have acted with malice

or bad faith. And a third party would be able to contract with the breaching party without becoming liable for the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations if a contracting party has already breached the contract and thus the third party cannot be held to have induced a breach of the other parties contract. While there was no breach of contract; the tort of inducing a breach of contract must require proof of a breach, but the cause of action for interference with contractual relations is distinct and therefore is very noticeable and requires only proof of interference.

Case Problem Chapter 18 18.Good or Service