Critical Legal Thinking Cases Case 9.2 and 10.2
Prepare answers to the following chapter-end Critical Legal Thinking Cases from this week's reading. 9.2, 10.2
Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice. For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus). Each answer should be double-spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between 300 words in length. Submit this assignment as a single Word document covering both cases. 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)
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 HeikkilaÕs motion to dismiss McLaughlinÕs 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)
This case was decided in favor of the plaintiff due ... and unilateral contract law. This form of contract law states that bilateral contract are agreements between at least two people or companies and this covers the majority of contracts. ... In contrast to the bilateral contract, a unilateral contract is established when a single individual or group commits to an action based on an outcome.