Click here to get an A+ paper at a Discount
WRITING ASSIGNMENT 2
1.The plaintiffs—the Nicols, Hoerrs, Turners, and Andersons—purchased subdivision lots from Ken Nelson. The lots bordered an undeveloped tract and offered scenic views of an adjacent lake. When Nelson and his partners began taking steps to develop the previously undeveloped tract, the plaintiffs sued. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had purchased their lots only after receiving oral assurances from Nelson that (1) the tract would remain undeveloped open space, (2) the property was owned by a company that had no plans to build on the land, (3) he held an option to purchase the property if it became available, and (4) he would not develop the land if it came under his ownership. Concluding that the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on Nelson’s oral promise, the trial court enjoined Nelson’s development of the property based on promissory estoppel. Nelson appealed, arguing that the Statute of Frauds, which requires that contracts involving interests in real property be in writing, barred enforcement of his oral promise. Is the trail court correct or is Nelson correct? Discuss fully.
2.Thelma, a law professor who recently obtained her driver’s license, bought a used car from Honest Bob’s Motors. The car had numerous defects that were plainly apparent, and Honest Bob made various false material statements of fact about the car in order to make the sale. However, Thelma paid no attention to these and bought the car because she thought Honest Bob was cute. After purchasing the car, Thelma discovered that it was junk and tried to rescind. Does she have the right to rescind? Why or why not?
