it was based upon a mutual mistake that the defendant owed additional money on the original agreement. Is the defendant correct in his assertions? Explain.

Jump to Solution
Category:

it was based upon a mutual mistake that the defendant owed additional money on the original agreement. Is the defendant correct in his assertions? Explain.

0
0

In late 2013 or early 2014, the plaintiff, Lan England, agreed to sell 258,363 shares of stock to the defendant, Eugene Horbach, for $2.75 per share, for a total price of $710,498.25. Although the purchase money was to be paid in the first quarter of 2014, the defendant made periodic payments on the stock at least through September 2014. The parties met in May of 2015 to finalize the transaction. At this time, the plaintiff believed that the defendant owed at least $25,000 of the original purchase price. The defendant did not dispute that amount. The parties then reached a second agreement whereby the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff an additional $25,000 and to hold in trust 2 percent of the stock for the plaintiff. In return, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the stock and to forego his right to sue the defendant for breach of the original agreement.
 
In December 2016, the plaintiff made a demand for the 2 percent stock, but the defendant refused, contending that the 2 percent agreement was meant only to secure his payment of the additional $25,000. The plaintiff sued for breach of the 2 percent agreement. Prior to trial, the defendant discovered additional business records documenting that he had, before entering into the second agreement, actually overpaid the plaintiff for the purchase of the stock. The defendant asserts the plaintiff could not enforce the second agreement as an accord and satisfaction because (a) it was not supported by consideration.

In late 2013 or early 2014, the plaintiff, Lan England, agreed to sell 258,363 shares of stock to the defendant, Eugene Horbach, for $2.75 per share, for a total price of $710,498.25. Although the purchase money was to be paid in the first quarter of 2014, the defendant made periodic payments on the stock at least through September 2014. The parties met in May of 2015 to finalize the transaction. At this time, the plaintiff believed that the defendant owed at least $25,000 of the original purchase price. The defendant did not dispute that amount. The parties then reached a second agreement whereby the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff an additional $25,000 and to hold in trust 2 percent of the stock for the plaintiff. In return, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the stock and to forego his right to sue the defendant for breach of the original agreement.
 
In December 2016, the plaintiff made a demand for the 2 percent stock, but the defendant refused, contending that the 2 percent agreement was meant only to secure his payment of the additional $25,000. The plaintiff sued for breach of the 2 percent agreement. Prior to trial, the defendant discovered additional business records documenting that he had, before entering into the second agreement, actually overpaid the plaintiff for the purchase of the stock. The defendant asserts the plaintiff could not enforce the second agreement as an accord and satisfaction because (b) it was based upon a mutual mistake that the defendant owed additional money on the original agreement. Is the defendant correct in his assertions? Explain.

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

Accord and satisfaction include the following:

There should be an outstanding amount over an authentic disputation.
The entire quarreling must be in full settlement of the purpose of the payment.
Payment must be accepted.

Also, the contract must have all essential elements, and the accord and satisfaction must have legality with consideration.At the meeting in the month of May, both parties assume that there was a disagreement about the amount paid, although it was considered baseless. Individual LE declares in bona fide interest that he believes that additional money stands unpaid. Individual LH accepted this depiction and Individual LE's settlement proposal. This is the reason behind the agreement, which is supported by consideration.

Verified Answer

The conclusive agreement is supported by consideration. Consideration for an accord may be made of compromises with respect to an authentic dispute about the amount unpaid. It is not required that the controversy should be justifiable as long as it is a part of the promise made. As a result, if the parties are in bona fide suspect that there is a disagreement or an unpredictability claim, minimal settlement of the amount is expected, and acceptance of that amount inaugurate the consideration required in order to support the contract.

Explanation

A conjoint mistake is when a misunderstanding is shared by both parties in a contract at the schedule of contracting; this fact (occurrence of joint mistake) is also relayed in the contract (agreement). This is also a fact as both the parties are unaware that Individual EH had already paid the full amount for the original agreement. This fault was not according to the terms between the parties accord. In fact, it depicted that their accord was indeed a settlement of a bona fide dispute, which was not justifiable but was made in good faith.
 
The intentions of the parties accurately reflect that the contract was entered into by their accord and satisfaction. Therefore, it is a basic assumption that there was no fault underlying the accord and satisfaction, and it is valid.

Verified Answer

Individual EH is incorrect. When Individuals EH and LE entered into a contract, they both conjointly agreed that the execution would be different than that needed by the original contract, and it will be made in exchange for the execution originally agreed upon. They also agreed that the exchanged agreement called for a different execution, which will release the committee created under the original agreement after which the accord and the satisfaction will both arise simultaneously.
 
The additional money is debited on the original agreement by Individual EH, and the amount of money is not declared correctly. The wrong declaration results to the accord being ineffective and dissatisfied because of the mutual fault of facts.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.