From: Erin N
To: Contracts Course grader
Date: 12/13
Re: Assignment 1

MEMO

FACTS

Bernie lives in Richmond, VA and he decides on February 1 to advertise the sale of his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,500 in the local newspaper. After several weeks and no offers he gets a call from Vivian on March 1st offering to purchase the car for $12,000. Bernie realizes he may not get any other offers and sets up to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the sale transaction.

After the negotiations, Vivian agrees to pay $12,500 for the car but needs another 3 weeks to get the money. Bernie agrees to wait if Vivian agrees to put down $1,000. Vivian agrees and Bernie drafts the one page agreement. Bernie stills wants to keep an open mind that …show more content…

The defendant company filed an objection to the plaintiff trustee’s breach of contact action; the company claimed that “the trustee did not have proper authority to sue for the difference in the amount the company bid at a foreclosure sale and the amount the trustee actually received, and that the contract lacked mutuality.” The court found that the “power of sale” in the deed of trust necessarily implied the power to sue the company for breach of the contract of sale. The company presented no authority for the scheme that the trustee did not have authority to sue only to enforce the foreclosure sale contract.

The objection was overruled as to the trustee’s authority; it was sustained as to the lack of mutuality in the agreement.

ANALYSIS

In Sayres v. Wheatland Grp., L.L.C. and Busman v. Beeren & Barry Invs., LLC both cases demonstrate the lack of mutuality required to uphold the contract. Sayres v. Wheatland Grp., L.L.C. the court held that the contract in issue was supported by consideration for both parties. “It is a fundamental rule in equity that a contract, to be specifically enforced, must, in general, be mutual in its obligation and in its remedy, and it must be mutual ab initio. In other words, it must be enforceable originally, or not at