Two Cases
raa.oCASE NAME: CATAMOUNT SLATE PRODUCTS INC. V. SHELDON
1. Legal Cognizance
2. Facts:
3. Briefly describe the facts: Catamount Slate Products Inc. is owned by the Reed family In Vermont, their neighbors the Sheldons share an access road leading into the two properties. Both parties agreed to mediation to determine whether or not the Reeds could use the road for business purposes. The mediation terms where only to be legal by way of signature, the Reeds agreed to pay a monthly fee and signed both a Lease & Settlement Agreement. Documents were drafted but never agreed to, and the Reeds began paying into an escrow account before anything was signed, to be paid to the Sheldons upon signature, unless the settlement did not occur. Months later a deed was discovered showing the land was a town highway. Further payments ceased and no documents were ever signed.
4.
5. Which facts were key to the outcome?
The mediation was set up as “offers” only, not intended to be legally binding until signing takes place. Additionally, the Reed family made it clear both verbally and in writing that they did not agree to the initial documentation and thus never signed.
2. Legal issue:
3. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)?
Execution of an offered & written contract requires an offer, a promise for a promise (along with its completion, and acceptance or indication of acceptance. This case exemplifies the first element but fails to complete the other two, thus it is not binding. Secondly, the contract falls within the rules of termination (land was not owned by Sheldons).
1. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that this case illustrates?
· Reservations not to bound without a written contract.
· Partial performance (completion) of the contract.
· All terms must be agreed upon.
· Land contracts are “subject to the statue of frauds” and needs to be in writing.
3. Prevailing party’s point of view:
4. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party?
5. The Reeds argued that not only was the road not owned by the Sheldons, but that by disagreeing with the terms, and never entering verbally or in writing into an agreed upon contract, no settlement ever occurred and was therefore not binding.
6. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles would support a ruling for the prevailing party?
7. Contracts were never signed; The disputed land was owned be neither parties; Agreement to terms never occurred.
8. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute?
9. The road was a shared road & thus the Reeds were entitled to use it to an extent. No contractual signatures or verbal agreements were ever made to bind the deal. The initial ruling ruled unjustly in Sheldons favor.
10. Losing party’s point of view:
11. What legal arguments were made by the losing party?
12. The meditation notes and documents drawn up represented a binding agreement, and thus should be properly enforced.
13. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles would support a ruling for the losing party?
14. The Reed family had caused a disturbance to the neighborhood through its productions, thus compensation or litigation was deserved and needed to limit it.
15. What were the probable motivations behind the losing party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute? The Reed family had been overusing a shared asset, and thus deserved compensation for the overuse and annoyance caused by day to day operations.
16. Judges point of view:
17. How did the court rule on each argument?
· The Reed party was not bound to the unsigned contract.
· Partial completion of the contract had not occurred, and was never finalized as written.
· Terms had never been clearly agreed upon, verbally or written.
· The contract even if binding was voidable with the Land not belonging to the Sheldons.
1. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles did the court use to support its ruling?
· The Reed Party had not signed, nor agreed verbally to said terms and conditions written by the Sheldon party.
· Payments had occurred, but no finalized agreement was established to meet the contract obligations, thus no partial completion.
· Although lengthy, discussions never resulted in an agreed upon arrangement.
· The land was not owned by the Sheldons, under the “Statue of Frauds” the lease was void.
1. What were the probable motivations behind the judge’s decision? The agreement was that upon documents being signed the contract would be enforced, therefore there were no obligations for the Reeds to pay the Sheldons. Additionally, The land was not owned by either groups.
2. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories, Synthesize, and Compare
3. Different Rules: Pose the question “What if the court adopted a different legal rule?”
4. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article or call an attorney or business professional who may have experience with this type of issue. –Washington post- BLM Oregon Ranchers Dispute- Over the past 40 years the government has sought to restrict or charge cattle ranchers for the use of grazing on its lands. Courts have ruled in favor of the fed until recently, stating that the land is for shared use and to restrict the ranchers entirely is unlawful.
5. Ponder and reflect to compare this case to recent news and cases. This is the really cool part. You will be thinking like a legally astute manager, owner, or professional as you read, analyze and compare cases to draw your conclusions. Some neat ideas to help with your analysis: If the outcomes of the recent cases you found are different, can you make sense of the different outcomes? Are there different legal standards that make for different outcomes? Is there a trend leaning more in favor of a plaintiff or defendant’s position? Are the outcomes the same or different simply because the facts are similar or dissimilar? What accounts for the same or different results? Write your thoughts here:
6. One of the recent trends I have noticed lately is that of concistancy, because the general public is so much more involved in issues and disputes, there tends to be a public outcry which sways the judgement away from the government and large corporations, and towards the people who feel wronged. Of course each needs to addressed by a case by case basis regarding rulings. Such swaying can both hurt and help the justice system at times.
7. Creative Application and Critical Thinking Questions
8. Your point of view of the case in the book:
9. Do you agree or disagree with the actual outcome? Why or why not?
10. I fully agree with the court’s decision to overturn the initial ruling favoring the Sheldons. Not only were terms never finalized, but the land in question belonged to the general public, and the Sheldons had no claims on it. I do however believe the Sheldons would have grounds for other litigation or restrictions due to the company’s disturbance of the local neighborhood.
11. Change it up: Pose the question “What if the facts were different
12. ” Where there to be verbal agreement about the terms and conditions, but still no signatures, the courts would be more likely to rule in the Sheldons favor, as an obligation had been created.
13. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or to the experience someone else has shared with you.
14. Living in Los Angeles briefly, we shared an ally with neighbors which led to our driveways. Naturally in the city these roads were rather small unfortunately. Every so often neighbors would park in the ally making it nearly impossible to navigate the road. My point being that although we were all entitled to use it, there were some limitations of how much we could use it without affecting others.
15.
D .How will you apply the lessons from this case to your future career?
I gain two lessons from this argument, first being that all disputes should be clearly settled both verbally and in writing. Secondly, although it may be legal or ethical to use public or shared assets, tools, or services, overusing them can have a negative effect on others, thus we should be respectful in using them.
1. Write recommendations to avoid future legal problems and that best suit the objectives of a firm or company in your chosen career field.
2. In the accounting firm, it is vital to maintain complete and accurate records, to avoid disputations or confusion. Doing so will avoid large disputes and confusion.