What are James’ legal contract rights in this case? James decided that he wanted to build a pool in his yard so that his kids would stop asking to go to his brother’s house all of the time to get in their pool. On February 1 James contracts with the Super Pool Company. The relevant terms of the contract are that Super Pool will complete the pool by June 1, 2019. The parties sign the contract. The price for building the pool is 20 thousand dollars. But, on April 1, 2019, Super Pool notifies James that it cannot complete the pool by June 1 because it has taken on too many projects to complete. Of course, James is mad and wants his pool completed by June 1, 2019. James calls around and finds another pool company that can complete the pool by June 1, 2019, but the price that the company will charge is 35 thousand dollars. James has come to your law firm and wants to know what he can do in this situation, if anything, to get his pool completed by June 1 for 20 thousand dollars.
Right now, Super Pool Company anticipate that they will be in breach of their contract, however, they are not in breach yet. Breaching a contract with respect to a delivery time would allow James to claim damages such as the time, effort and expense of continuing to go to his brothers house. While difficult, these things can be quantified, however, they are unlikely to amount to very much. It’s far simpler if the contract contains a liquidated damages clause where the damages per day or per week have been pre-agreed - they are quite common in construction contracts. Unless the contract specifically states that “time is of the essence” then the failure by Super Pool Company to complete on time does not give James the right to terminate the contract. If James were to do so it would be a repudiation and Super Pool Company could sue James for $20,000 - the contract price. If the delay became unreasonable (say 2 or more times the contract period) then this would allow James to terminate the contract and sue for damages - this would include any additional cost incurred by having the work done by others.
I did some research and found the information below. It took me a while to figure out that the issue is known in German as &quot;Insichgeschäft&quot;. The quotes below are translations from Wikipedia. The term self-dealing is also used in Switzerland. It is regulated in Art. 32 ff. OR. The Federal Supreme Court has consistently ruled that self-contracting is fundamentally inadmissible because it “regularly leads to conflicts of interest and is therefore not covered by the company's purpose”. The contracting of the agent with himself should only be able to develop legal effects in exceptional cases, in particular if either the risk of the person represented being disadvantaged due to the nature of the legal transaction is excluded (e.g. &quot;purchase of goods with clearly defined market or stock exchange prices&quot;), or if the representative &quot;specifically authorizes the representative to conclude a contract with himself, which in certain circumstances can also be tacit or approve the transaction retrospectively&quot;. Now since I am the owner of the business and my company would get a free exclusive license, I assume that the above mentioned exceptional case is valid: However, the risk of discrimination (and thus also the obligation to obtain approval from a higher-level or subsidiary body) does not apply if there are no other shareholders in the AG in addition to the body that has concluded self-contracting. The Federal Supreme Court has rejected the additional requirement that, in addition to the absence of further shareholders, there must also be no corporate creditors. Sole shareholders are therefore free to enter into individual deals. Therefore, such a contract should be legally ok. Finally, to be considered: As part of the reform of the GmbH, the company law (Art. 718b OR), the GmbH law (Art. 814 Para. 4 OR) and the cooperative law (Art. 899a OR) introduced the requirement of written form for contracts that the representative of the company concludes with himself, with the exception of contracts which do not exceed CHF 1,000.
I intend to close on the house as I've already signed all the loan paper work, but is there anything that can be done about a Realtor that breaks contract? You have probably waived your claim if you proceed with the deal knowing about the Realtor's conduct. What would your damages be? Could you have mitigated them by not agreeing to the deal? Also second question would it be better to seek a personal or Real estate attorney in such situations as this? Lawyers aren't that specialized. I would not recognize a "personal" attorney as something necessarily different from a "Real estate attorney" and the questions involved are not so complex that a general practice attorney couldn't handle them. Familiarity with real estate issues would be desirable (e.g. you wouldn't want to hire someone whose practice was exclusively as a criminal defense attorney or a personal injury lawyer, or a patent lawyer, for this task), but a great many lawyers who describe their practices differently would have the relevant experience and knowledge.
The issue of who pays directly for the items and/or to contractors is irrelevant. The important thing is to memorialize the agreement/arrangement in writing so as to preempt or solve eventual disputes. A clearly written agreement signed by the parties would supersede any presumption of conditions and rights arising solely from the parties' conduct.
In General Generally speaking, applying common law principles, no. In the case of a relative or friend or neighbor or someone like that, doing a favor for a business does not create a legally enforceable right against a business or business owner. Contract Claims The question assumes that there is not true express contract, or even really a contract to pay compensation in some amount or by reference to some schedule of rates, that was implied in fact. Unjust Enrichment Claims One can still recover for service or benefit rendered under a claim of &quot;unjust enrichment&quot; in the absence of a contract. But, in contexts applicable here (also called &quot;quantum meruit&quot;) there must be an expectation of payment communicated in a way clear to an objective observer of the situation to recover, as opposed to a gratuitous provision of service. One classic case of unjust enrichment is when someone paints your house by accident, when they are actually under contract to paint your next door neighbor's house, and you know that they made the mistake but allow them to go forward expecting to be paid anyway. Another classic case is one where services must be provided by a doctor or repairman or lawyer on an emergency basis and everyone knows that they were hired with an intent that you pay them, but the price could not be agreed upon because it was urgent to do the work immediately before working out the details of a contract to provide services. In these circumstances, the service provider is entitled to payment of the fair value of the services provided despite the lack of an express agreement regarding the amount. In this example, however, there is not a clear expectation of payment that an objective outside observer would have been able to discern at that time the services were provided, so by default, the help provided was gratuitous, and not enforceable legally. Special Considerations For Spouses This general analysis also applies to a spouse, but not quite so strictly. While the spouse couldn't sue for compensation or having a legally enforceable right to compensation, the extent of the help provided would be one factor among many that could be considered in determining an equitable division of property (in states that are not community property states) and an appropriate and equitable amount of alimony in states that do not have a fixed formula for determining this amount. De minimis assistance would &quot;come with the territory&quot; and be part of a spouse's general right to an equitable division of property under a partnership theory of marriage. But, more extreme labors not compensated in money during the marriage, such as personally building a barn on a farm, or working full time in a spouse's business for a prolonged time period without express money compensation, might have a value assigned to it that is considered in balancing each side's share in an equitable division, if one spouse is reaping the benefit of the other spouse's unpaid labor by receiving, for example, a working farm or business. Similarly, in a fraudulent transfer case, it is possible that a payment to a spouse for extreme labors in the past of this kind would have a status similar to a payment for a pre-existing and not substantially contemporaneous debt. A spouse would be an insider. But, the transfer for no contemporaneous consideration might be considered safe from a fraudulent transfer attack after one year rather than the usual four year statute of limitations on fraudulent transfers. Concluding Observation: Questions Of Proof. Of course, all of this would be based when litigated on oral discussions and context limited by people's memories. This might make proof of a claim like this on the merits hard to win on at trial. But, it also makes disproving a claim prior to trial, when what happened is disputed, difficult. Caveat For Intellectual Property Claims I do not address the issue raised by a comment of designing a logo which raises legal issues specific to who owns intellectual property. Sometimes the person who comes up with an idea is the default owner of the intellectual property rights associated with that idea, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. This default rule usually applies even if the intellectual property was created with the intent that it be used by someone else.
This would be a case of mutual mistake or unintentinal ambiguity. If the circumstances make it clear what year the parties intended, particularly if it is the current year, a court would probably treat the contract as if it specified that year. If the parties' intentions could not be reasonably determined, a court might rule that there had been no meeting of minds, and so no valid contract at all.
It would be a violation of 18 USC 1001, which is the law against making false statements to the federal government. Paul Mozer, who was a Salomon Brothers trader, received a four month sentence for doing something along those lines in 1994. Bidding on something implies an intent to pay for the thing, which in this case is a falsehood: in so doing, one "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" (that you don't intend to pay for the thing).
This is actually pretty standard. You have a contract with a business to provide some service, and you get a bargain on the price of the service as long as you stay with them for some period, such as 2 years. You could get the 'pay as you go' option which doesn't have a termination fee, but that costs more if you are sure you can commit to what you signed up for, for that period. So it's not that you can't terminate the contract, it's that you can't just walk away from your obligation (what they call a "minimum term agreement"), cost-free. The early-termination fee is part of the cost of moving. You have to look in the Legal Agreements &amp; Contract part of Account Details on your account to get the specific agreement that you are bound by. Generally, you are subject to that fee, unless the subscriber dies, or is in the military and is shipped out. You can also transfer your service from area to area – I assume you either are moving to an area without Xfinity service, or you elected to not use Xfinity in that location. It is legal for a business to put their business interest above that of a customer, even in the case of regulated "utilities".