Contract Law: Cases and Judgements

This article discusses various cases related to contract law, including parties involved, facts, issues, and judgements based on the rule of law. The cases include AES vs employees, R-Vision vs Associated Homes and RV Sales, and Kent vs Hogan. Read on to learn more.

Running head: Contract Law
Contract Law

Contract Law 1
Chapter 13 (Question 8)
Parties Involved
The plaintiffs are the employees of the AES. AES is the defendant in the case.
Facts
There are eight employees including Vanegas that work in AES. AES has orally
promised that it AES will be merged they will get receive the 5 % of the value and later it
was sold and the company has refused to pay the value to the employees by arguing that no
contract has taken place. The employees therefore sued the AES for the breach of the oral
contract. AES moved for the summary judgement that the agreement was illusory. The
Appeal been affirmed (Smits, 2017).
Issue
There were two issues. The first issue is whether the employees has accepted the
promise of 5 % of the value. The second issue is whether the agreement was a subject of
fraud (Smits, 2017).
Judgement based on the Rule of Law
The trial Court has given the summary judgement by stating that the agreement was
illusionary and therefore it is not a valid contract. The appeal was also affirmed (Smits,
2017).
Chapter 14 (Question 9)
Parties involved
The Associated homes and RV sales are the plaintiff. R-Vision is the defendant in the
case.
Facts
The R- Vision is the manufacturing company of the recreational vehicles. The R-
Vision was not happy with the current dealer Rocky Mountain. It has warned that he will
change the dealer. The RV gave the application to the associated homes to become the dealer
of the R-Vision. Associated homes in return have sent the dealer application form. RV sales

Contract Law 2
have called associated homes that they have to submit the four RV orders to become the
dealer. R-Vision than contacted Rocky Mountain that they have a new dealer in the area and
he is now no more a dealer of R-Vision. Rocky Mountain said that in accordance with the
Mexico law it is required that 90 days’ prior notice to be served. R-Vision who already made
Associated Homes a dealer and it had not received any RV from the R-Vision. They both
Associated homes and RV sales have sued the R-Vision (Smits, 2017).
Issue
Does the Agreement between the R-vision and Associate homes is valid?
Does the form meet the requirements of a valid contract?
Judgement based on the Rule of Law
It has been stated by the judge if the signature of the party with the present situation
intention for authenticating the agreement is valid. Thus, the judgement is affirmed (Smits,
2017).
Chapter 14 (Question 10)
Parties involved
Warren Kent is the plaintiff. Sarah and Eddie Hogan are the defendants in the case
Facts
A 2-1/2 acre land that was located in the Tangipahoa Parish was for the sale by their
real estate agent Darita Richardson. Plaintiff has given offer for purchase of the land for $
52,500. The agreement to purchase or sell has been created after the Hogans was receptive
and was signed by Mr Kent on the same day. The offer has a deadline of 11th December, 3.00
p.m. according to the terms & conditions of the contract. The meeting was scheduled by Ms
Richardson at 11th December at 2.00 p.m. for presenting the agreement to Hogans but he
failed to appear and contacted the plaintiff advocate for the extension of the offer and the
plaintiff has extended the time for two days. The next day again the agreement has been made
and the deadline of 13th December, 3.00 p. m was set and on 13th December about 9.00 a.m.
Mr Hogan signed the document but he failed to write the date and time. Plaintiff has again
given the document through the agent to Mr Hogan than he wrote the time around 4.44 p.m.
but he refused to give back the agreement as he has changed his mind to sell. It was also not

Contract Law 3
clear whether the plaintiff was informed about this development. The closing date of 21st
December was set but the Hogans has failed to come. Mrs Hogan’s son from the earlier
marriage has contacted the plaintiff attorney in janury 2002 stated that he is the owner of a
1/3 interest in the property (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2016).
Issue
The issue in the case is for the specific performance. Does the contract of sell of the
immovable property between the parties was formed?
Judgement based on the Rule of Law
The judgement in the case has been reversed in the case by stating that there was no
such contract was perfected.

Contract Law 4
References
Arson Home & R V Sales, Inc. v R Vision Inc 2006 US. Dist, LEXiS 95631].
Kent v. Hogan 2004 La. App. Lexis 2539
Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2016). Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Smits, J. M. (Ed.). (2017). Contract law: a comparative introduction. USA: Edward Elgar
Publishing.