In the first situation that will be analyzed, the contract is written, Brant is a minor, and Cooper is an adult. Brant sold the coin collection to Cooper in exchange for $5,000. Brant then has a change of heart and wants to recover his coin collection from Cooper. The issue is whether or not Brant is allowed to do this while he was still a minor and what if Brant was a minor at the time of the sale, but did not decide that he wanted the coin collection back until a year after his eighteenth birthday.

First we have to address the issue of the written contract. To address this issue you must consider if this rule falls under the Stature of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds stipulates which contracts need to be in written form to be enforceable. (West 270) One of the rules states that a contract for goods priced over $500 must be written. So, this contract i

In cases when an unreasonable amount of time has passed, the law assumes that the contract was ratified when the minor didn’t take any action to disaffirm the contract shortly after reaching the age of majority and it was executed by both parties before the minor reached the age of majority. If the contract was executory when the Brant wanted to get the contract back one year after reaching the age of majority, for example Cooper still owed him a portion of the $5000, Cooper could disaffirm the contract because the law considers executory contracts to be disaffirmed when they are executory by one of the parties. (West 242)

Before giving remedies to Cooper you would have to look at what type of mistake was made by the parties involved in the contract. In this case you have a unilateral mistake of value by Cooper. There is never any mistake in what was to be sold, so that rules out mistake of fact. A unilateral mistake of value consists of a mistake of future market value of the object of the contract, and normally can be enforced by either party in the contract. (West 259)

In the second situation the contract is oral, and both parties are adults. Brant creates a memorandum of the transaction, indicating the names of the parties, the date, the exact terms of the contract; Brant places the memorandum in his file. Cooper refuses to go through with the agreement. The issue at hand is if this contract is enforceable against either party.

If the court ruled that this was a unilateral mistake of value by Cooper then no remedies could be rewarded to him. The court looks upon value as being a forever-changing situation that can be different given any number of circumstances. When entering into a contract concerning the value of something the law sees it as each party assuming the risks that the value may be different at any given moment after the contract is carried out.

The third situation deals with the value of the coins. The contract was for the sale of a coin collection from Brant to Copper; both are adults, and the coins were sold for $5,000. Brant however, has just had the coins appraised and found their worth to only be valued at $2,000. Brant expressed that he knew, in fact, the coins to be valued at $5,000. Cooper later learns of this discrepancy and wants to sue Brant. The question raised is what remedies Cooper can implement to recover from Brant.

In assignments, the obligor can satisfy the debt by paying the assignor if the obligor was not notified of the assignment. (West 286) For example, if Cooper was not notified of the assignment by Viva, the contract would have been discharged when he paid Brant the $5000. If Viva wanted the $5000 that Brant owed her she would have to initiate separate actions against Brant to obtain the money and Cooper would not be involved in any way. In the case though, Cooper was notified of the assignment by Viva. The only way the contract can be discharged at this point is for Cooper to pay Viva the $5000. Viva can sue Cooper for the $5000 because she is given the right to receive the money from Cooper. It is irrelevant that Cooper gave $5000 to Brant. If Cooper wants to get the $5000 back from Brant, he will have to take Brant to court to get the money back and show that Brant was not entitled to money and that he paid the money to Viva.

Some topics in this essay:
Cooper Cooper, Brant Cooper, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Brant Copper, Statute Frauds, Viva Brant, Report Contracts, Cooper Lastly, Code UCC, Brant Brant, coin collection, $5000 brant, $5000 cooper, specific performance, collection cooper, fraudulent misrepresentation, brant $5000, brant minor, disaffirm contract, age majority, unilateral mistake value, viva sue cooper, equitable remedy specific, exact terms contract, remedy specific performance,