comments for 4 students .
the reply should be around 150 words .
I believe that the jury will favor the bank. I believe this because according to Business Law: Text and Exercises by Roger LeRoy Miller and William Eric Hollowell, “every party who signs a negotiable instrument is either primarily or secondarily liable for payment of that instrument when it comes due” (pg. 293, 9th edition). Because Hahane is one of two members for LLC, HELPING HAND, LLC, she is liable for payment for the loan too. Although it does not state if she was the primary or secondary indorser, she would still be responsible in either scenario. In addition, I don’t believe the bank has any responsibility to “warn” Hahane about her overdue loan because it has been two months since it was due, she should have recognized it before acquiring a big purchase like land.
If the bank wins, I believe the damages will be Hahane’s lost of the purchase of land and the $750 for the paperwork to refuse Hahane’s check. These two are damages because they are things that have happened in consequence to the bank denying Hahane’s check. Both are undoable and are losses for both parties.
I feel that a bank should have the right to offset a loan to a customer on any account because there should be financial liability in all forms of bank accounts. Whether it’s personal or business, the bank should be able to keep their consumers liable for all forms of their bank responsibilities. In this case especially, it’s important for the bank to be open about a change in policy like this because a consumer needs to be aware of it especially consumers like Hahane who has had a checking account with this bank for 10 years. By giving the bank the ability to keep their consumers responsible, situations like these can be avoided.
1: it depends on the specifics in the agreement signed between Hahane and the Bank also the loan agreement. It is the responsibility of the Bank to intimate Hahane that they would freeze or attach their account in the case of nonpayment on the loan. If this part is mentioned in the loan agreement, the jury would side with the bank. because as stated by, Business Law: Text and Exercises by Roger LeRoy Miller and William Eric Hollowell, “every party who signs a negotiable instrument are either primarily or secondarily liable for payment of that instrument when it comes due” (pg. 293, 9th ed) also she is responsible for the payment of the loan. Besides, the bank has no responsibility to notify Hahane about her overdue loan because it has been two months since it was due. so I believe the case would be a favor to the bank
2: If Hahane wins she could sue the bank for damages in terms of losing on the land deal, loss of goodwill due to the dishonored check, and legal expenses incurred. However, if the bank won the case they can sue Hahane for the repayment of the loan, legal expenses, attaching her account.
3: I believe The bank should be able to take this action only if it is under the terms of the agreement in either the bank account creation or the loan agreement. In the absence of these, the bank should not be able to unilaterally freeze or attach the account.
1.) Legally speaking, Jared’s children have the stronger argument. In this case, while the violin collection may have been verbally gifted to Susan during Jared’s lifetime, she was excluded in writing in the will, meaning that they are left up to the estate. They were not explicitly gifted to Susan in the will meaning she does not have the right to the collection. The children’s argument that promises not made in writing or not noted in the will itself does not constitute a valid gift is a valid argument.
2.) I would gift the violin collection to the children via the estate solely because it wasn’t willed to Susan. As unfortunate as it may be for Susan, if Jared did not write her in the will for the collection I could not give her the rights to the collection as it would be legally remiss of me to do so. Even with being presented the written promise and oral testimony from Susan, if it is not gifted in the will, it is not her property. According to the Order of Distribution laid out in the textbook, “…remaining assets pass to the surviving spouse and to the decedent’s children” (Chapter 40/ Page 514/ 9th Edition). Here it is explicitly stated that the decedents of the estate get the assets, thus, because she was not included in the will, legally she is not the rightful owner of the collection, as she was not properly gifted them by the testator.
3.) In a perfect world, yes, fairness should play a role in the outcome of such a decision such as this, but in reality, when pertaining to legal documents and instances such as this, accuracy and attention to the fine print must be observed and respected. As unfair as this is for Susan, it is either up to her to read through the will beforehand, ask Jared to put her in the will, or have some other form of proofreading to ensure such a valuable asset is gifted to the right person.
4.) If oral and written promises were made considerable in this case, Susan would likely be walking away with the collection as it seems as though Jared’s intent was to have Susan own the collection after his death. Thus, if said promises were presented and honored, Susan would have legal authority over the collection, still, she wasn’t in the will therefore should not get the aforementioned violin collection.
1.I believe that Susan has the stronger argument. It may not have been stated in Jared’s will that Susan was to receive the Violins, but Jared sent Susan a confirmation that he was giving them to her after he wrote his Will. Additionally, the Violins were not specifically stated in the will so deferring to the letter that Jared wrote is logical. To our knowledge, Jared did want Susan to have the violins and it would be against his wishes to keep them from her.
- If I were the jury I would decide on behalf of Susan. As Page 17 of the chapter 8 powerpoint states, “If the language is ambiguous the court will consider outside evidence” (Miller, 9th edition). The court will consider this evidence especially if the, “Contract lacks a provision on a disputed issue”(Miller, 9th edition). In this case, the Violins were not specifically mentioned in the will so the written letter to Susan along with the verbal agreement should be considered.
- I think saying that considerations of fairness and the intentions of a person should take precedence over a will is a bit extreme. However, fairness and intentions should definitely be considered. Because Jared wrote his will when he was old, his intentions may not have been accurately articulated into his will. Additionally, because his will was so vague, his intentions should definitely be considered. On page 4 of the chapter 10 powerpoint it states, “consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law” (Miller, 9th edition). Consideration should hold value, but I don’t know if it should take precedence over legality.
4.If oral and written circumstances were considered for this case various problems could potentially arise. One problem could be that a precedent could take place where oral and written promises were considered over written law in future cases where it is not applicable. This can be dangerous because oftentimes, oral promises are said in just and if they are considered it would not accurately represent a situation. Furthermore, the state of the person is not always considered when looking into written or oral agreements which could also be dangerous for the potential outcome of the case.