A Legal Case against Zen - Essay Example

 A Legal Case against Zen 1. It is hard to imagine that Gigi has a legal case against Zen. The reason for this is that the only form of agreement between them is verbal: and in most cases, verbal agreement is not usually legal binding, except in a rare circumstance where the court could establish a definite pattern in Mr. Zen whereby he had had various verbal agreements with the others in the past and strictly abided by them. In the absence of this scenario, Gigi definitely has no winning case against Mr. Zen; no matter how much money she has lost in this process. Because it requires a formal, written and legally presentable document to file for damages against breach of contract at the court. And since Gigi is not in possession of this important document, she will rather need to resolve this issue amicably with Mr. Zen. In Morguard Residential Inc. v. Adams, 2005 ABPC 27, the legal case existing between landlord and the tenant was dismissed because the tenant’s agreement was verbal, and judged inconclusive. Therefore, the following are possible assumptions about how Gigi could recover the sum of $4 million spent on development plans. Firstly, she could discuss amicably with Mr. Zen and discovered if he decides to lease the place to another satisfactory tenant because of better offers. Gigi could agree to increase how much she has previously agreed to pay for the place. Secondly, Gigi may go ahead to sell her development plans to Mr. Zen in case he has made up his mind to establish a similar business at the place and has prevented to let Gigi in to avoid a stiff competition. Thirdly, she could look for an entirely new businessperson who may be interested in her development plans and offer to repay the whole amount spent on the projects. Fourthly, Gigi could discuss with all the parties involved in the development plans and request for a reduction in the project cost in order to minimize her overall losses if she couldn’t find a ready businessperson that wants to take over her development plans. 2. Patton doesn’t have any legal remedy against Dennis in as much as the formal, written contract stipulates a specific delivery date. This contractual statement overrides any verbal agreement the two of them might have entered into. No matter how much Patton is going to lose, he hardly could drag this case to the court and win it because Dennis has got a legal binder, in the form of the written contract, which the court would concentrate their proceedings on. Verbal agreements are sometime said to be as powerful as the written ones; but the situation is not always realistic. Take for example the case of Realty Company v. Joel, 168 Ga. App. 480 (1983), the court tried to establish a set of reasoning for determining the extent of damages that could be awarded to the party affected by a breach of contract. What this explains is that the case was admitted and deliberated upon based on the fact there was a written agreement between Realty Company and Joel. And this formal contract nullified any other promises, pledges and conversations the two parties might have had between them, because the court neither mentioned the applicability of such verbal agreements nor used them in making its final decision. Therefore, considering the case example given above, Dennis’ statement of defense would be considered and used as the legal document to make his case against Patton whose only weapon for requesting for justice is a non-binding verbal statement. However, if they had been good business partners before this incident, Dennis could decide on a generous term to provide some credit facilities for Patton so as to minimize the effects of the losses, or supply him discounted products so that Patton could recover his losses within a short period of time. And this would be an out-of-court settlement since the court hasn’t found Dennis guilty and liable for damages payment. Therefore, in the real interpretation of all legal issue, written agreement is more powerful and applicable to argue a case than a verbal agreement that isn’t legally binding on the defendant; in this scenario, Dennis. 3. This case is very interesting in the sense that it involves two parties that have two different opinions about what had happened. Derrick, like the other drivers, unknowingly accepted the terms of a contract he didn’t bother to check its contents. Here, there is the issue of ignorance. On the other hand, Tseung Kwan, a veteran of shipping business, knew quite well that accidents do occur at the loading bay, and he cleverly absolved himself of any responsibilities arising from a circumstance of accident at the loading bay. According to a common maxim: there is no ignorance of the law at the court. Derrick could not point to his ignorance of the contents of the terms and conditions of loading in order to force Tseung Kwan to pay for damages for his destroyed truck. Similarly, Tseung Kwan would not want to be responsible for any liability caused by total neglect on the part of any of the drivers. For instance, in Pickford Black Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Co., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 261, the court dismissed the appeal case against the insurance company because the damage was caused by carelessness of one of the employees of Pickford Black Ltd. This explains that whatever the extent of damage or accident, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the court would force the other party to be responsible for it, in as much as that there is a written contract that explains the terms of agreement the two partners must work together with. Derrick could never use his reasoning of ignorance to either entreat the court to compel Tseung Kwan to pay damages for the accident his suffered at the loading or ask the insurance company to part with some claims in order to buy a new truck or repair the damaged one. It is funny to think of this, but it is a possibility: Tseung Kwan might go ahead to sue Derrick for obstructing his loading business with his destroyed truck. Because every loading/port area is always busy: and any accident at the place could stall business activities for a short time. 4. Evgenia has a good case against Aberdeen Property Holdings in the sense that she has been supplied with misleading information in the course of buying an apartment from Aberdeen Property Holdings. In Coon v. Beck, 1999ABQB 140, it was discovered that the landlord made false statements that were later discovered by the tenant and instituted a legal case against. The Landlord was found guilty in this regard. Therefore, Evgenia could decide to abandon the apartment, stating the reason of misleading and false information. If Aberdeen Property Holdings takes the case to court to seek damages for breach of contract, there is every possibility that the case would either be dismissed or in favor of Evgenia. The court would justly identify and justify the falsification in the contract, and order the case to be thrown out. On the other hand, Evgenia could decide continue with the agreement to buy the apartment if and only if Aberdeen `Property Holdings fulfill its promise of evicting the bad tenants and replacing them with good ones. In case Aberdeen Property Holdings defaults in the process of putting new and better tenants in the apartment, Evgenia could go to the court to force Aberdeen Property Holdings to do so or pray for the termination of binding contract between her and Aberdeen property Holdings. But there is always an option of sub-letting the said apartment to another tenant: this is possible when Evgenia feels that she couldn’t handle all the headache coming from the property, she could hand it over to an Estate Agency that would handle all the processes of evicting the bad tenants and putting nicer ones in the apartment. If she still maintains a good relationship with Aberdeen Property Holdings, Evgenia could ask for a discount in the price of the property, as the bad tenants previously occupying the place might have reduced the value of the apartment. Read More