Explore BrainMass
Share

# Breach rationale

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

Brian McDonald spent his time away from work on his hobby, model trains. His train set was large and consisted of rare and one-of-a-kind trains. One day, while visiting with fellow train hobbyist Harry, Brian said, â??When I retire in 2 years from Foodmart, Iâ??m going to sell my trains and spend the rest of my life traveling on real trains.â? Brian told Harry that he was the only person he planned to offer his trains to, because he knew Harry would take care of them. Harry said he looked forward to the day when he could buy the trains. Harry spent the next 2 years and most of his savings building a new 2,000-square foot room onto his house to make room for the trains. When Harry told Brian he was building the new room, Brian just smiled. Brian also heard that Harry borrowed money from his aunt to buy the trains. When Brian retired, he sold his trains to his neighbor, James. Harry sued Brian, claiming breach of contract, or in the alternative, for promissory estoppel. Who wins? Explain your answer.

https://brainmass.com/law/tort-law/breach-rationale-371566

#### Solution Preview

Harry wins. First, when Brian told Harry that he was the only person he planned to sell his trains to there was no agreement, no contract. However, Harry assumed that he would be offered the trains by Brain and he made elaborate preparations to receive the train, first by preparing a room for the trains, and then by borrowing money from his aunt. These facts were known to Brian but he did not stop Harry from incurring the expenditure. However, when Brian retired, he ...

#### Solution Summary

This solution gives you a detailed discussion on Breach rationale

\$2.19
Similar Posting

## A case brief is a short summary about a case that allows its reader to easily understand the relevant facts, history, law, conclusion, and rationale of the case.

In a contract matter, a case brief consists of the relevant facts of the transaction in the case, its procedural history, the issue(s) disputed. the rule governing the transaction, the current court's decision on the case, and the reason why the court granted the judgment it did.

View Full Posting Details