Tallas moved from
Greece to Salt Lake City in 1914. Dementas was a friend of Tallas who would run
errands for Tallas. During the end of 1982, the two met and Tallas handed
Demantas a Memo that stated he owed him $50,000 and that he would also make him
a heir. Tallas went and notarized all the memos and then they were delivered to
Demantas. Shortly after being delivered, Tallas died. Dementas noticed that
Tallas didn’t make him an heir like he said he was going to. He filled a claim
so he could receive the $50,000 and Tallas’s estate denied the action. During pretrial,
the court said that the memo was an “acknowledgement” and it was then sent to
trial. The court ruled that the memo didn’t enforce a contract.
Was the work that Dementas did for Tallas in the past sufficient
consideration to make the memo an enforceable contract?
No, the prior work that Dementas performed was done with no
expectation of payment and he did not negotiate a legal impairment. Thus, there
is no consideration to support a contract.
Anything that happens before a contract is created, that
doesn’t help with contract progression, isn’t covered by the established
Consideration requires that an impairment has been bargained
for and exchanged for a promise. While Dementas did do some work for Tallas, it
was done prior to the promise made for Tallas to pay him $50,000.
Opinion(s) Reasoning: Bench and Davidson, JJ., concur.
Opinion(s) Reasoning: No dissenting opinion.
and satisfaction (compromise): A meeting in which
two parties agree to meet on the basis of actually compromising.
When both the parties agree to accept something other than
what was originally offered.
performance of an accord.
Wayne Smith hired an attorney to
complete his divorce papers. Wayne had signed a contract which stated that he
would pay his attorney (Olds) in periodic payments for the completed work. As
this case went on, Wayne got behind on his periodic payments so at the end Olds
sent him a bill for payment of $10,000. Wayne didn’t agree on the amount that
was sent so he sent Olds checks which totaled $8,500. Olds told Wayne that he
wasn’t going to cash the checks due to the fact that they weren’t the full
$10,000. Olds ended up suing Wayne for the remainder of the amount that was
Yes, I think that these laws are very
helpful in our society. This one is important because it protects both of the
parties involved in the contract. This helps one party from changing the terms
of the contract.
but not adjudged insane: unofficial classification of insanity.
Frank Edgar got diagnosed with Alzheimer’s
in 2002. When he was in the hospital for surgery he expressed the farms he
owned to both of his sons. One of his sons Harry, received a larger portion of
land than Norman. Norman went to the court and stated that his father wasn’t
competent when he assigned the land. Three different people had testified to
this in court. While one attorney said Frank understood what he was signing the
papers for. But when they went back and looked and nursing records, they found
out during that day when he signed papers, he was having lucid periods. One argument that the court could make is that
because of the lucid periods that he was having throughout the day and with
several people testifying to him being “insane” they would say that the
contract was void. Because the he had lucid intervals throughout the day, the
court could argue that the contract is enforceable.
Personally, I think that the court
would rule that because Frank was having lucid periods during the day that he
signed the papers that the contract would be voidable. I then think that they
would give each of the sons both equal amounts of the property.
Yes, I think that this rule works well
within our society. One reason would be because and insane but not adjudged
insane person doesn’t always know what they are doing. This also helps so that
these people are taken advantage of.
by concealment: When one party hides material facts from the other party.
Influence: When a party takes advantage of another party due to a weakness
and influences them to enter into a contract.
Salzbery Mink Ranch was making TV advertisements
that made people want to raise minks. The Mink Ranch made it very clear that
you didn’t need any additional training and anyone could raise minks in their
basements or anywhere else. These advertisements also stated that the minks
were noiseless, and you could make a six figure income just off of this. Many
people got involved and they shortly realized that they needed advanced skills
to raise these minks. Over the three-year period that each of the plaintiffs
had these minks, they had no financial success. They wanted to rescind the
contracts and get the money back.
I think that the court would rule that Salzbery
Mink Ranch did in fact commit fraud by concealment.
feel like this one is a very important law in our society. It wouldn’t be fair
for someone to go and tell someone all about a certain product and lie to the
potential customer about it. Fraudulent misrepresentation is a serious thing.
If this wasn’t a law, we would have a lot more of this going on in the world