Holt vs MacPherson
There were four parties to this case. One was Schuster and Co. who owned
two volumes of a rare edition of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.
The second party was MacPherson, a rare book merchant. The third party
was the local library and the fourth Holt, a collector of rare books.
One volume of the books was in good shape, the second intact but poor
condition. MacPherson bought both volumes from Schuster and Co. During a
rare book display in the local library MacPherson loaned the two
volumes out for display. Without his knowledge, only the volume that was
in good shape was displayed among other rare books. The second volume
was placed in a different display among other books needing repair in a
way that its title and contents could not be read. Holt called
MacPherson after the books had been returned to their owners. Holt asked
whether MacPherson had a copy of Canterbury Tales for sale. MacPherson
said he had one that was ‘not in too good shape’. Holt confirmed
from MacPherson that the copy had been in display, in the library, and
expressed interested in purchasing it. Holt sent the cheque of the
amount agreed, and MacPherson sent the book in poor condition. When she
received, Holt complained that it was not the one on display in the
library. MacPherson insisted it was. Holt sued MacPherson to recover the
cash she had spent for the book.
The transaction falls under a sale by description (Bridge, 2007). Holt
was agreeing to buy the book she had seen on display in the library. Her
claim was viable because only one book was well displayed. When she
called MacPherson for a sale, MacPherson did not confirm with the local
library whether both books were displayed.
Opinion on the outcome
Holt was justified to receive her money back because the book she
received did not match the description she had seen in the library.
MacPherson did not confirm whether both volumes were displayed. He also
did not seek clarification as to which between the two volumes he had
availed for display Holt was interested.
Plaintiff vs. Marie-Claude
The plaintiff was a person representing six years old boy. The defendant
Marie-Claude was a lady who owned a bowling alley in a commercial area
neighboring a residential area. Near the bowling alley was a parking
lot, which the children used as a playground. Marie-Claude would send
the children from the parking ground to eliminate the danger of being
hit by moving vehicles. There was a boy roughly aged six years who used
to climb to the flat roof of the bowling area through the fence. Though
Marie-Claude ordered him to get off the roof severally he never obeyed.
One day when Marie-Claude was away, the boy climbed to the roof. He
started running on the roof and accidentally tripped and fell sustaining
serious injuries. A case was filed against Marie-Claude.
Marie-Claude’s direct liability is for the people legally within her
bowling area. However, the boy’s ability to enter the bowling premises
where the boy was hurt from there brings out the matter of liability to
Marie-Claude should have taken some action to ensure the means the boy
was using to climb to the roof was eliminated. Her failure to do so
amounts to negligence which makes her liable for the boy’s injury.
Gill vs. Gina Porter
Gina Porter was the owner of a farm that had an odd formation at the
centre. Gill was a road contractor. Suspecting that Gina’s land could
have some quantity of gravel, he offered to purchase the farm for
$280000. Gina insisted on a cash payment and deleted the words ‘on
cheque’ from their purchase agreement. Before the day of the exchange,
Gina heard a rumor that the reason Gill wanted to buy her farm was that
the farm had a fortune in gravel. She instructed her lawyer not to
prepare the deed and accused Gill of trying to steal her farm by
offering her less than its true value. In actual sense, $280000 was
slightly higher than the amount of equal farms in that area. On the day
of the exchange, Gill went to Gina’s farm carrying $280000. Gina
rejected the money and refused to close the deal.
Gill made a genuine offer to buy Gills farm. He adhered to Gina’s
insistence on payment by cash by carrying the amount in a briefcase.
When Gina barred him from entry and rejected the money, Gill drove back
to the city. Gina initially accepted the offer and expressed her
preferred mode of payments. She believed the rumors she heard about and
used them as a basis to overvalue her farm and cancel the sale agreement
with Gill. On the day of closing the deal, she rejected the money. The
two had signed a purchase agreement. Each was bound to fulfill their
obligation when they meet for the exchange of the deed for money.
Opinion on outcome
In case Gill brought the matter before a court, Gina would be charged
for breach of contract because she had already signed the purchase
agreement. The claim that her land had been undervalued could not be
Good Times Bank vs. Habitation Apartments Ltd and Simple
Habitation Apartments Ltd is a corporation in the mortgage industry.
Good Times Bank is a credit lending institution. Habitation Apartments
Ltd took a $500000 loan from Good Times Bank and secured it with
three-year mortgage plan of one of their apartments. The bank requested
for more security and Simple, the president of the corporation offered a
personal guarantee to the loan. When a dispute with the shareholders
rose later, Simple and several affiliates of the directors’ board were
relieved of their duties. A new president and board of directors were
appointed. The new president and the board decided to realign the
structure of the company’s operations. This led to revision of the
mortgage plan extending it for three years at a high interest. Simple
who was now only a shareholder was not notified about the revised terms.
A year later, the corporation was hit by tenancy problems and high
vacancy rates which made it difficult to meet its mortgage obligations.
The mortgage went into default. The bank contacted Simple demanded
payment since he was the guarantor. Legal analysis
Simple is bound by the guarantee agreement he signed when the loan was
disbursed. The corporation is liable to the bank to repay the loan
balance. If the bank takes legal action, Simple will have to repay the
loan. He should have been notified about the new financing arrangements
as the guarantor to the loan. He made a personal commitment to secure
the loan. After repayment, Simple can sue Habitation Apartments Ltd to
recover his money.
Bhana, D., Bonthuys, E., & Nortje, M. (2009). Student`s guide to the law
of contract. Cape Town: Juta.
Bridge, M. G. (2007). The international sale of goods: Law and practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CASE ANALYSIS PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 2
CASE ANALYSIS PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1
Case Analysis Case Analysis
Holt vs MacPherson
Holt vs MacPherson