Premium Essay

Parker V. Glosson

In: Business and Management

Submitted By Shelbyone111
Words 464
Pages 2
Research Assignment
Parker v. Glosson

Contract
In the case of Parker v. Glosson, it was stated that both Douglas and Sandy Glosson offered to see 36 acres that included a truck shop, warehouse, and office. In order for a contract to be valid between Glosson and parker, both Douglas and Sandy Glosson would have to sign the said contract. Only Douglas signed the contract, which made this particular contract void. According to our text, a contract is “an agreement upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing.” If both Sandy and Douglas are the sellers of the 36 acres then obviously both names need to be on the contract in order for it to go through. There was no contract being that Sandy’s signature was not on the contract. Therefore, there was no breach of contract.

Terms
Even though all parties did agree to all relevant terms, not every tiny detail of an offer must be present for it to be a valid offer according to our textbook. In this case Sandy never agreed to sign the contract. When negotiating parties make it clear that they do not intend to be bound by a contact until a formal written agreement is executed, no contract exists until that time. Sandy did just that by not signing the contract means that no contract ever existed and there was no breach of contract by Sandy not signing the agreement.

Agreement
Even though an agreement was made, that agreement occurred between Parker and Douglas Glosson. It clearly states, “Douglas Glosson and Parker agreed on the terms and signed the agreement.” Nowhere does it state that sandy agreed to this particular agreement. It might have been assumed that she was going to sign the contract but there was no such agreement on the matter that our book mentions. Sandy offered to sell 36 acres but Douglas Glosson and Parker agreed on terms and signed the agreement.

Sandy does have

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Case 3

...Logan Armbruster September 17, 2014 Business 481 Case 3.1 1. Did New London treat Susette Kelo and her neighbors fairly? Assuming that the proposed development would help to revitalize New London, is it just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull? a. I believe that New London treated Kelo and her neighbors as fair as they could. The proposed development would hope to attract new development, which would help revitalize the community and bring in tax revenue. I believe it’s just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull because of their power of eminent domain. 2. Are towns such as New London and Salina pursuing wise, beneficial, and progressive social policies, or are their actions socially harmful and biased against ordinary working people and small-business owners? a. I believe that New London and Salina are pursuing progressive social policies but their actions are socially harmful to the homeowners of the areas that they are taking over with their eminent domain right. 3. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government? Explain why or why not. a. I believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government. I feel this way because you are being compensated for your loss of property with either money or land or both. If the area where your home is located is potentially a prime area that could bring in new development and revitalize a community...

Words: 547 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Eminent Domain Paper

...have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be used. One of the most controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil. Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent on payment of just compensation” (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain has been a part of the United States ever since the constitution was created. Eminent domain is not stated in the constitution. However, it is implied at the end if the Fifth Amendment, " [no person should] be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution). Eminent domain is not new to the United States. The first eminent domain case was “in 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty" (“Draw the Line”). After World War II, eminent domain was used on a regular basis. "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v Parker that private projects meet the definition if they have a public purpose" (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain is a sad way for a family to lose there home. Eminent domain...

Words: 1214 - Pages: 5