Section 1 Principals Rebecca Warren v. Mechanics National Bank Acquiring and removing mortgage loans are essential activities in the business field. They secure and release obligations of loans against properties that loaners have. Due to the great significant value of mortgage loans and the complex procedures of acquiring and removing, mortgage loans can cause some considerable inconveniences to business activities. In this lawsuit case, Rebecca Warren is seeking to file a lawsuit against Mechanics National Bank. They failed to remove the lien on the property of land that Ms. Warren owned in LagoonBeach, Green; although she fully paid her debt in November, 2004. Context This case if closely based on interpretations of contract law, and financial accounting analysis. This lawsuit is carefully being analyzed by our team, and the report will be submitted to our company, Legal Eagles, LLP. This report is assigned and will be analyzed and submitted by team 3. Open Questions Did Mr. Warren make an acceptance or a counter-offer or a rejection on the letter by changing the 45-days escrow to a 60-days escrow? Is failure of removing the lien on the LagoonBeach property against the law of negligence? How to use financial accounting principles and statistical analysis to generate a reasonable compensation to Mr. Warren due to the lost possibility of acquiring Hotel California.
IRAC Case #1 Issue: Was Commercial Escrow Company negligent in their treatment of Rockport Rebel’s funds? Rule: To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and that they breached that duty of care. They must also show a causal connection between the negligence and the resulting injury. They must then show that actual loss or damage resulted from the negligence. Application: Rockport Rebel claimed that Commercial Escrow met all of the aforementioned requirements that constitute negligence and are liable for the resulting damages. By entering the escrow agreement, Commercial Escrow became part of an agent-principal relationship that comes equipped with fiduciary responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is the duty to use care in matters that pertain to the agency. The agreement that they entered had a specific provision which stated that the $25,000 that Rockport Rebel put forth can only be released with Rockport’s written consent, and that they would be fully refunded should the contract not be completed. By releasing the money to Citywide, Commercial Escrow failed to follow the terms of the agreement, which creates a breach of their duty to care. The release of the money to Citywide meant that Rockport Rebel could no longer recover their funds. This establishes a direct causal connection between the negligence and Rockport’s resulting injuries. Lastly, since there was a tangible loss of $25,000, there is clear evidence that Rockport suffered an actual loss or damage. According to these facts, Rockport met the requirements necessary to recover damages under the cause of action of negligence. Conclusion: Commercial Escrow was negligent in their treatment of Rockport Rebel’s funds. IRAC Case #2 Issue: Did the collective actions of the plaintiff and the defendant create a valid contract? Rule: No contract can exist without mutual consent from both parties. For consent to exist, both parties must agree to the same thing in the same sense. A counteroffer containing a condition different from that in the original offer is considered a new proposal. If this proposal is not accepted by the party that issued the first offer, the negotiations amount to nothing. Application: In this case, the defendant began contract negotiations with the plaintiff. He offered the plaintiff $100,000 in addition to a percentage of the sales of an invention that the plaintiff created. The plaintiff sent him a return letter stating his interest in doing business with the defendant. It also included a proviso to the defendants offer, stating the invention had to go into production within a definite period of time.
The defendant argued that he made an offer to work with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s return letter constituted an acceptance of that offer with a “suggestion for better terms.” However, the plaintiff argued that the added proviso significantly changed the terms of the contract and was simply an invitation to negotiate the matter further. No further evidence was presented that indicated the talks went any further than the series of letters already brought forth. Conclusion: The proviso added new stipulations to the negotiations and did not result in an acceptance of the offer. No binding contract ever came into existence.
Section 1
Principals
Rebecca Warren v. Mechanics National Bank
Acquiring and removing mortgage loans are essential activities in the business field. They secure and release obligations of loans against properties that loaners have. Due to the great significant value of mortgage loans and the complex procedures of acquiring and removing, mortgage loans can cause some considerable inconveniences to business activities.
In this lawsuit case, Rebecca Warren is seeking to file a lawsuit against Mechanics National Bank. They failed to remove the lien on the property of land that Ms. Warren owned in Lagoon Beach, Green; although she fully paid her debt in November, 2004.
Context
This case if closely based on interpretations of contract law, and financial accounting analysis.
This lawsuit is carefully being analyzed by our team, and the report will be submitted to our company, Legal Eagles, LLP.
This report is assigned and will be analyzed and submitted by team 3.
Open Questions
Did Mr. Warren make an acceptance or a counter-offer or a rejection on the letter by changing the 45-days escrow to a 60-days escrow?
Is failure of removing the lien on the Lagoon Beach property against the law of negligence?
How to use financial accounting principles and statistical analysis to generate a reasonable compensation to Mr. Warren due to the lost possibility of acquiring Hotel California.
IRAC Case #1
Issue: Was Commercial Escrow Company negligent in their treatment of Rockport Rebel’s funds?
Rule: To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and that they breached that duty of care. They must also show a causal connection between the negligence and the resulting injury. They must then show that actual loss or damage resulted from the negligence.
Application: Rockport Rebel claimed that Commercial Escrow met all of the aforementioned requirements that constitute negligence and are liable for the resulting damages. By entering the escrow agreement, Commercial Escrow became part of an agent-principal relationship that comes equipped with fiduciary responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is the duty to use care in matters that pertain to the agency. The agreement that they entered had a specific provision which stated that the $25,000 that Rockport Rebel put forth can only be released with Rockport’s written consent, and that they would be fully refunded should the contract not be completed. By releasing the money to Citywide, Commercial Escrow failed to follow the terms of the agreement, which creates a breach of their duty to care. The release of the money to Citywide meant that Rockport Rebel could no longer recover their funds. This establishes a direct causal connection between the negligence and Rockport’s resulting injuries. Lastly, since there was a tangible loss of $25,000, there is clear evidence that Rockport suffered an actual loss or damage. According to these facts, Rockport met the requirements necessary to recover damages under the cause of action of negligence.
Conclusion: Commercial Escrow was negligent in their treatment of Rockport Rebel’s funds.
IRAC Case #2
Issue: Did the collective actions of the plaintiff and the defendant create a valid contract?
Rule: No contract can exist without mutual consent from both parties. For consent to exist, both parties must agree to the same thing in the same sense. A counteroffer containing a condition different from that in the original offer is considered a new proposal. If this proposal is not accepted by the party that issued the first offer, the negotiations amount to nothing.
Application: In this case, the defendant began contract negotiations with the plaintiff. He offered the plaintiff $100,000 in addition to a percentage of the sales of an invention that the plaintiff created. The plaintiff sent him a return letter stating his interest in doing business with the defendant. It also included a proviso to the defendants offer, stating the invention had to go into production within a definite period of time.
The defendant argued that he made an offer to work with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s return letter constituted an acceptance of that offer with a “suggestion for better terms.” However, the plaintiff argued that the added proviso significantly changed the terms of the contract and was simply an invitation to negotiate the matter further. No further evidence was presented that indicated the talks went any further than the series of letters already brought forth.
Conclusion: The proviso added new stipulations to the negotiations and did not result in an acceptance of the offer. No binding contract ever came into existence.