The common law concepts that determine whether a binding and enforceable contractual agreement between the parties was

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

The common law concepts that determine whether a binding and enforceable contractual agreement between the parties was legally formed. Courts such as the one in the case of In re Plankenhorn, 228 B.R. 638 (N.D. Ohio 1998)(a federal Bankruptcy court in the Northern District of Ohio) will use an objective, reasonable person standard to determine whether a "meeting of the minds" exist. Find the Plankenhorn case using Google Scholar, read it and respond to the following questions.
1. The core issue in this case was whether a valid bankruptcy claim or contract existed. Larry Browneller took his 1963 Chevy sports car to Hubert ("Debtor"), a semi-retired mechanic, and requested that the Debtor repair the car and make it show-worthy. Debtor told him that he could not make it "show quality" and Larry insisted that Hubert do "a damn good job." Debtor kept the car and worked on it for several years with Larry's knowledge. When Hubert finished the work, Larry refused to pay the bill alleging that it was not "show quality" as originally requested. Did the Court agree with Browneller's argument that Debtor did not produce a car that was "show quality" as requested?
2. Explain whether the Court found that a legally binding and enforceable Contract existed between Browneller and the Debtor and the primary reason for its decision. (5 Points)
3. Explain why the Court rejected Browneller's claim that the Debtor Hubert was negligent in fixing his Chevy sports car.
Section II. Implied vs. Express Contracts. This Section requires you to read the case of Roger's Backhoe Service, Inc. v. Nichols at the end of Chapter 8 of your eText and respond to the following questions regarding the case.

1. Did the Court find that an express or implied agreement existed between the parties?
2. Explain why the Court found that an implied agreement existed between the parties.
3. Identify the legal standard that the Court used to determine that such an agreement existed.

4. Explain whether the Court in the Plankenhorn case discussed in Section I might have properly considered that the Contract at issue there for the repair of Browneller's car was an Implied Contract and why?
Section III. Statute of Frauds. This Section requires you to read the assigned eText regarding the Statute of Frauds and to find/read the case of Cohn v. Fisher, 118 N.J. Super. 286 (Law Div. 1972)
through Google Scholar. Once you have read the above, respond to the following questions.
1. The Statute of Frauds under the U.C.C. requires certain contracts for the sale of goods to be evidenced by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of the contract is sought.
Is the agreement in the Cohn case required to be evidenced by a signed writing? Explain why.

2. Explain whether the Court found a writing that was sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds in the Cohn case and, if so, what that writing consisted of. Section IV. This Section consists of one question. Respond to the following question:
Identify what elements are required in general under the Common Law for a legally binding and enforceable agreement to exist?