Bilateral or Unilateral Contract – G. S. Adams, Jr., vice president of the Washington Bank & Trust Co., met with Bruce

| November 9, 2018

9.2
Bilateral or Unilateral Contract
G. S. Adams, Jr., vice president of the Washington Bank & Trust Co., met
with Bruce Bickham. An agreement was reached whereby Bickham agreed to do his
personal and corporate banking business with the bank, and the bank agreed to
loan Bickham money at 7.5 percent interest per annum. Bickham would have ten
years to repay the loans. For the next two years, the bank made several loans
to Bickham at 7.5 percent interest. Adams then resigned from the bank. The bank
notified Bickham that general economic changes made it necessary to charge a
higher rate of interest on both outstanding and new loans. Bickham sued the
bank for breach of contract. Was the contract a bilateral or a unilateral
contract? Does Bickham win? Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust Company,
515 So.2d 457, Web 1987 La.App. Lexis 10442 (Court of Appeal of
Louisiana)
(Cheeseman 179)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry
University, 8th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook
file.
The
citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy
before use.
10.2
Agreement Wilbert Heikkila listed eight
parcels of real property for sale. David McLaughlin submitted written offers to
purchase three of the parcels. Three printed purchase agreements were prepared
and submitted to Heikkila, with three earnest-money checks from McLaughlin.
Writing on the purchase agreements, Heikkila changed the price of one parcel
from $145,000 to $150,000, the price of another parcel from $32,000 to $45,000,
and the price of the third parcel from $175,000 to $179,000. Heikkila also
changed the closing dates on all three of the properties, added a reservation of
mineral rights to all three, and signed the purchase agreements.
McLaughlin
did not sign the purchase agreements to accept the changes before Heikkila
withdrew his offer to sell. McLaughlin sued to compel specific performance of
the purchase agreements under the terms of the agreements before Heikkila
withdrew his offer. The court granted Heikkila’s motion to dismiss McLaughlin’s
claim. McLaughlin appealed. Does a contract to convey real property exist
between Heikkila and McLaughlin? McLaughlin v. Heikkila, 697 N.W.2d 231,
Web 2005 Minn. App. Lexis 591 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota)
(Cheeseman 194)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry
University, 8th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook
file.
The
citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy
before use.

13.5
Innocent Misrepresentation
W. F. Yost, who owned the Red Barn Barbecue Restaurant (Red Barn), listed it
for sale. Richard and Evelyn Ramano of Rieve Enterprises, Inc. (Rieve), were interested
in buying the restaurant. After visiting and conducting a visual inspection of
the premises, Rieve entered into a contract to purchase the assets and
equipment of Red Barn, as well as the five-year lease of, and option to buy,
the land and the building. Prior to the sale, the restaurant had been cited for
certain health violations that Yost had corrected. In the contract of sale,
Yost warranted that “the premises will pass all inspections” to conduct the
business.
Rieve took
possession immediately after the sale and operated the restaurant. After two
weeks, when the Board of Health conducted a routine inspection, it cited 52
health code violations and thereupon closed the restaurant. Rieve sued to
rescind the purchase agreement. Evidence established that Yost’s
misrepresentations were innocently made. Can Rieve rescind the contract? Yost
v. Rieve Enterprises, Inc., 461 So.2d 178, Web 1984 Fla. App. Lexis
16490 (Court of Appeals of Florida)
(Cheeseman 230)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry
University, 8th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook
file.
The
citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy
before use.

20.1
Cure Joc Oil USA, Inc. (Joc Oil),
contracted to purchase low-sulfur fuel oil from an Italian oil refinery. The
Italian refinery issued a certificate to Joc Oil, indicating that the sulfur
content of the oil was 0.50 percent. Joc Oil entered into a sales contract to
sell the oil to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed). Con Ed
agreed to pay an agreed-upon price per barrel for oil not to exceed 0.50
percent sulfur. When the ship delivering the oil arrived, it discharged the oil
into three Con Ed storage tanks. A report issued by Con Ed stated that the
sulfur content of the oil was 0.92 percent. In the past, Con Ed had permitted a
delivery of nonconforming oil to be cured by a conforming delivery. Joc Oil
made an offer to cure the defect by substituting a conforming shipment of oil
that was already on a ship that was to arrive within two weeks. Con Ed rejected
Joc Oil’s offer to cure. Joc Oil sued Con Ed for damages for breach of
contract. Does Joc Oil have a right to cure the nonconforming delivery? Joc
Oil USA, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., 457
N.Y.S.2d 458, 443 N.E.2d 932, Web 1982 N.Y. Lexis 3846 (Court of Appeals
of New York)
(Cheeseman 339)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry
University, 8th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook
file.
The
citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy
before use.

Get a 20 % discount on an order above $ 40
Use the following coupon code:
LOBSTER
Positive SSL