Week 6 Interactive Activity ✔ Action Items Submission Instructions Choose one of the following cases, then analyze the cases in the Questions and Problems. Case A: Chapter 15 (8 and 9) and Chapter 16 (7) in Dynamic Business Law Case B: Chapter 15 (6 and 7) and Chapter 16 (9) in Dynamic Business Law

Dynamic Business law Chapter 15 CASE A Case 8: the parties who are involved in the case are Zhang and Frank Sorichetti In this case, the plaintiff was Zhang who was the buyer of the LAS Vegas house the defendant was Frank Soriechetti who was the seller of that house The fact of the case is that a contract was made between Zhang and Frank for the sale of a house property by Frank at a sale price of 532500 dollars. Both parties made a contract and agreed on it but after two days the seller wanted to terminate the sale contract as he wanted to stay in that Las Vegas house and does not want to sell that house. Later on, the seller agreed to sell the house for a higher sale price to which the purchaser agreed. Another contract was made and both of them also agreed to purchase and sell. The legal issue here is whether the second contract that was made was enforceable in a court of law. It can be analyzed that the first contract contains a valid contract as both the seller and the purchaser agree and promised to buy and sell the house on a valid consideration and the consideration was also decided on the consent of both the parties and no fraud, undue influence or coercion was exercised on the buyer or seller to enter into a contract (Zhang v. Dist. ct. 120 nev.. adv. op. no. 104 (2004)). The mortgagor of the property has been given a time limit of three days from the date of agreement to terminate the contract as per the federal truth in the lending act. The contention of the buyer was that the law has been misrepresented by the seller intentionally. Though the seller has provided furnishing drapes in the second contract this cannot be said as a valid consideration as the second contract has been modified and also due to the non-performance of the first contract from the seller the second contract cannot be enforceable. So, it can be concluded that Zhang should win the case. Case 9 In this case, the plaintiff is Dorothy Simmons, and the defendant was his husband vincent Simmon The fact of the case was that Dorothy Simmons wants the inherited land from Vincent at the time of the divorce but his husband argue that the land was not related to marital property. The land belongs to Vincent and his sister as per the deed of his mother. Dorothy hired a lawyer to prepare a deed that, if Vincent died, the share of vincent in the property would be vested in her. The issue was that when the divorce was filed by Dorothy then his husband argued that the contract does not involve any valid consideration but according to Dorothy the 25 years of marriage shall be a valid consideration for the validity of the contract. As per the contract act, the consideration can be adequate if the person who is fulfilling the agreement or contract receives something for that contract (Appeals, 2021). It is to be concluded that Dorothy's contention is not tenable in the court of law as Dorothy was arguing that 25 years of living together as a husband and wife is to be considered a valid consideration for a valid agreement. The share in the property can also be provided to Dorothy if before the dissolution of the trust his husband died but his husband is fit and fine and so the property will not be given to Dorothy a there is no valid consideration. Vincent Simon will win this case easily in a court of law CHAPTER 16 CASE A Case 7 In this case, the plaintiff was Bannister and the defendant was Bemis company. The fact of the case is that When Bannister was terminated from his employment then Bemis company made and agreed with him that he would not join any of Bemis's competitors for a period of 18 months from his retirement but Bannister can work for any other company who is not a competitor of Bemis. The other clause of the agreement was that if Bemis remains unemployed during the 18 months after termination then Bemis will be liable to pay compensation in terms of salary to Bannister. The issue, in this case, was that Bemis company refuses to pay any amount to Bannister though it was agreed by Bemis at the time of entering into the contract. Bemis argued in the court of law that as per the provisions of a non-compete contract or agreement a person will not be liable for any compensation from his former company. When Bannister wants a release letter from Bemis so that he could work for Mondi company then Bemis refuses to provide him release letter and later on Bemis argues that Bannister was released earlier only like other staff and employees of Bemis as Bannister was only restricted from working with Mondi company and was allowed to work for any other entity (RICHARD KYLE, 2008). The conclusion will be that Bemis has to pay the compensation for 9 months as after 9 months from the date of termination Bannister was recruited by a company and as per the non-competence agreement (NCA)act, Bannister has fulfilled the duty that was agreed by him at the time of contract and Bemis company has to pay the compensation to Bannister as the clause written in the NCA. Even after the judgment of the district court, Bemis will lose the case in its further appeal to a higher authority. Here the winner will be Bannister as he has performed his duty. References Appeals, A.C.of (2021) Simmons v. Simmons, 98 ark.. app. 12, 249 s.w.3d 843 (2007), Caselaw Access Project. Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab. Available at: https://cite.case.law/ark-app/98/12/ (Accessed: October 15, 2022) (no date) Zhang v. Dist. ct. 120 nev.. adv. op. no. 104 (2004). Available at: http://titleinsurancecenter.com/Title%20Insurance%20Pages/Cases/Nevada/Zhang_v_Dist.Ct.(Sorichetti).htm (Accessed: October 15, 2022). RICHARD KYLE, D.J. (2008) Bannister v. Bemis Company, Inc.., Legal research tools from Casetext. Available at: https://casetext.com/case/bannister-v-bemis-company (Accessed: October 15, 2022).