Explore BrainMass
Share

Legal Theories

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Gary's hobby was collecting antique guns. His collection consisted of many rare guns. One day, while visiting with Cody, a fellow collector, Cody said, "When I retire, I am going to sell my collection to you." Gary said he looked forward to the day when he could buy the collection. Gary then spent a year and a great deal of money remodeling a room in his house to display the collection. When Gary told Cody that he was remodeling the room, Cody said nothing. Cody also knew that Gary had borrowed money to remodel the room. When Cody retired, he sold his collection to someone else. Gary sued Cody claiming breach of contract.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 17, 2018, 11:35 am ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/legal-theories-545752

Solution Preview

We need to examine this situation and weigh the elements against the elements that made a contract valid. In this case, we have something of value (the collection), and a promise, as Cody told Gary he was going to sell him the collection as soon as he retired. A valid contract has several elements, which are:

1. All parities must be competent.
2. There must be an offer.
3. There must be an exchange of consideration.
4. All parties have to agree to the terms of the contract, as-is, or the contract must be modified until parties agree.
5. The contract must not include illegal elements. It cannot be a contract for illegal drug sales, for example.
6. The contract must meet legal requirements, which can include signatures, the contract must be dated, and other appropriate elements must be included.

Now let's take a look at our list ...

Solution Summary

This solution explains if Gary and Cody had a legal contract. Each element is discussed and properly referenced.

$2.19
Similar Posting

Critical Legal Theory and Critical Legal Studies

I was assigned a 7 minute oral report yesterday. I am having trouble distinguishing these two topics from one another. I plan to encompass both in my presentation on Critical Legal Theory and Critical Legal Studies.

I need to know:

1. Origin - (I think this is Marx, but I am having trouble getting details).
2. What triggered it - (political dissatisfaction with hierarchies? need more details)
3. Purpose - (to reconstruct government so no hierarchies exist?)
4. Main personalities
5. Its practice

Issues I am struggling with:

1. What is the difference between the Critical Legal Theory and Critical legal Studies? From what I currently understand, Critical legal theory was initiated by Marx...is critical legal studies the study of critical legal theory?? I need clarification.

2. What does Karl Marx have to do with Critical Legal Theory? I cannot find much info on this except for this one fact.

3. Mark Tushnet? Other important influences? I need specifics so I can compose this essay/oral report. I know enough right now for about 4 min of speaking, so I need more details. I have the Altman book and the Adams book with Tushnet, however I having issues picking apart the most vital information. I cannot go over 7 minutes, but I wish to cover everything. I guess I just need details on the general stuff.

I need a VERY detailed answer on the 5 elements above (origin, etc.), but not necessarily a long answer. Please do not cut and paste from internet searches, unless you supplement it with a good deal of your own insight (I have already checked out the majority of online information, unless you have something on Marx that can assist me.)

Thank you in advance.

View Full Posting Details