Running head: LESSON 3 CASE STUDY

Lesson 3 Case Studies

Prasiddha Bhakta Shrestha
BUS 540: Business Law for Managers
Professor: Flavia LLOYD
July 19, 2015

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

Business Law: Critical thinking Case

Sutton Vs Warner Case:
This case is about doctrine of part performance. In this case Donald Warner proposed to
sell his property as $15,000 down payment toward the purchase price of $185,000. In this
proposal Suttons were to pay all the mortgage payment a real estate taxes on property for five
years. This was agreed orally. The Sutton paid the down payment and cash payment equal to the
monetary mortgage to the Warner as well as paid annual property tax on the house. Further he
also made improvements to the property. But four and one half years later Warner reneged on the
oral contract sales/option agreement. At that time house had risen in value to between $250,000
and 320,000. Then Sutton sued for specific performance of the sales agreement.
Case Review
Reason for the development of doctrine of part performance:
Doctrine of part performance state that although the contract made orally but has been
already partially performed, then court enforces such contract to specifically perform. In the case
Warner and Sutton had an oral agreement regarding the real estate property. As per agreement
Sutton had partially performing the agreement but later Warner reneged the contract and increase
the price of the property. Then Sutton Sue a case. So to avoid injustice doctrine of part
performance was developed.
If Statue of Fraud had applied:
The statue of fraud states for any transaction of real estate contract, it needs written
agreement. Since there is no written agreement between Warner and Sutton for the real estate
transaction. So even Warner had cheated, Warner would have won the case if the statue of fraud
has been applied. Since there was no any written document made.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

3
Summary and Conclusion

As a part of equitable expectation law the doctrine of part performance has emerge. If an
oral contract for the sale of land or transfer of other interest in real property has been partially
performed, it may not be possible to return back. To solve this problem, the court has developed
the equitable doctrine of part performance. This doctrine allows the court to order such an oral
contract to be specifically performed if performance is necessary to avoid injustice.

Case 13.1: Workers in China et al V.s Walmart Stores, Inc:

In the given case the contract of third party arises. In the case there was a contract
between Walmart and its foreign suppliers. In the contract, there was a code of conduct to be
followed by its foreign supplier. The Walmart could inspect the quality of the product and would
check whether the products were made according to local law or not like hiring forced labour,
child labour and discrimination etc. But workers working for those foreign supplier sued case
against walmart for not inspecting the quality of foreign suppliers.
Case Review
Ethical Dilemma:
Analyzing the case, the claim of workers of foreign supplier against Walmart for not
inspecting the quality if its foreign supplier as agreement made shows that the Walmarts
standards are illusory which cannot consistently enforce its foreign suppliers. But it does not owe
a duty to require that its foreign suppliers provide the same protection to their workers as is
provided to workers in the United States.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

4
Summary and Conclusion

This case makes up idea about the third party beneficiaries. Especially the incidental
beneficiaries, these beneficiaries are those who became the parties of contract unintentionally.
These plaintiffs do not have right to enforce or sue under other people contract.

Case 14.1: Turner Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. McDavid:

In this case Turner Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. McDavid, these two companies entered
into contract and had Letter of Intent outlining the proposed sales terms. The parties held
several telephonic communications and meetings to resolve outstanding issues. But when the
times comes to sign the contract another person opposed the contract claiming that Turner
already had a contract to sell the assets to Atlanta Spirit. McDavid sued against Turner for breach
of contract.
Case Review:
Ethical Dilemma:
Analyzing the case, for any contract to be performed the oral agreement is necessary. So
business person are bound to their oral word where the conditions were testified and lawyers are
expected to prepare the written documents that memorialized the parties agreed upon terms. In
the case the Turner broadcasting acted unethically since it breached the contract by making the
same contract with two parties.
Summary and Conclusion
The contracts which are acknowledged by both parties intended to sign the written
contract that memorialized the oral agreement are enforced. Thus breaching the contract at this
situation is enforceable.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

Reference:
Cheeseman, H. (2014). Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law. Prentice Hall,