More Business Law

[Tino]

A firm of attorney's engaged to draft a plan of reorginization for a client in such a manner as to minimize tax liability. The attorneys submitted their bill for 2500 which is reasonable for the services they performed. A short time thereafter the client decided not to go through with the reorganization and refused to pay the bill on the grounds that the "consideration has failed". what are the attorneys rights if any?

Walker agreed to purchase a violin from matson. The price stipulated was 400. Later Walker refused to carry out the terms of agreement because the violin was only worth 300. Was his action justified?

A grocery company rendered a bill for 260 to one of its customers. The customer disputed the claim and maintaned that the amount should have been 240. The finally compromised on 250. Was the compromise enforceable.

Price subscribed 100 to be used in making repairs on a church, on condition that 1000 would be raised for that purpose. The 1000 was fully rasied. Price then refused to pay the amount of the pledge contending that there was no consideration for his promise. was he right?

[Tino]

no stabs?

[Cold_Zero]

Third one sounds like both parties had a verbal agreement. The Attorneys were contracted to draw up plans and were not paid? If they dont get paid, they are bad Attorneys. I would think with services rendered, failed or not, they would have a case. I could be way off.

[MaineExport]

Tino my man... I would gladly help had I not just finished a 3 hour exam in Business law II. I spent the ENTIRE day Tuesday reading 140 pages of the most dry, boring, and overly technical legal jargon on earth (at least from the perspective of a non-law major). The exam left me feeling weak and tattered. We have three exams all semester that account for the entirety of our grade. If you screw one up… it’s pretty much hopeless for the rest of the semester.

Go read your text... I'm 100% sure the answers to each question (or one very similar to it) are directly addressed in the chapter from which they come. As boring as legal text books are... they are thorough and to the point.

Good luck... it only gets more annoying as you go. I don't envy law students.

[Bunta240]

my brain went into sleep mode as soon as I read "enganged to a draft".

[Tino]

I have done them all and combed my book but still am leary... I can't wait til this black and white pencil and paper **** is over. I'd rather turn a wrench than push a pencil I can tell ya that much.

[C-Kwik]

I'd say it really depends on the agreements made and somewhat on the arguments made. Verbal agreements stand, but there has to be some evidence of it if one of the parties denies it. It's word vs word. Written agreements are much more enforcable. But perhaps if not all services were used, then only certain charges might be enforcable. I find auto repairs to be somewhat similar here. A customer typically signs a work order before a mechanic starts work. This is the mechanic's prrof of authorization to do work, and the customer's propmise to pay for the work done. But if a mechanic were to do only some of the work, the customer is only required to pay for the work done. While in practice, this may not be a perfect example with the situations above, I think it has a lot of similarities and I would think about some of these principles as I think about eachof those scenarios. But the scenarios aren't really detailed anough to make a very good evaluation IMO.

[90Q45blue]

The attorneys have the right to collect all attorney fees under number 1. Because the work was done post-petition, the debtor is obligated to pay his attorney's fees pursuant to the court's ruling. If said debtor fails to pay the fees the court orders paid, then the court may then revoke his discharge and the attorney can then file an adversary and be listed as a post-petition creditor.

This is all provided that the attorney in question filed an application for attorney's fees, it was approved by the trustee and an order was signed by the judge of the bankruptcy court.

Nick

[Tino]

Also, consideration and adequacy are big in these cases I believe.

[90Q45blue]

Adequacy really doesn't have a play in this case. The court determines first if the fee is adequate. If so then they issue an order for payment of fees. Then there is no argument. I guess you could argue that the court hadn't yet ruled on the matter, but more than likely they have...especially if he refused to pay. He doesn't get the order to pay until the judge signs it.

Nick

[MaineExport]

Well, without having time, energy, desire etc... to look up the answeres or give them the consideration they are due... I'll give my best guesses...

1. The client CAN refuse to pay the bill, but may not have the RIGHT to refuse payment (there is a difference). I suppose the answer depends on the nature of the contract between the client and the law firm. If they were hired on a consultative basis they are entitled to receive payment for their services. If they were hired to perform a service and the client had reasonable information that would suggest the service was not adequate for their purposes, then they may not have to pay. The attorneys have the RIGHT to file suit against the client to recover their losses. The outcome ofof such a suit depends... there really isn't enough information about the structure of their contract (agreement) or if one even existed.

2. I forget how this kind of case is handled, but my gut tells me he agreed to pay $400 and he should be held to the agreement. The only argument otherwise would be that the price was merely a "stipulation" which would imply that it is dependant upon a final decision by EITHER party to be made sometime before the actual sale. Also, there might be an argument that the seller misrepresented the violin leading Walker to believe it was worth more than it actually was. Then, obviously Walker has the right to retract his offer or make a new one.

3. It's enforcable in that they both agreed to it. I'm not clear on what this question is asking. Was the original $260 enforcable? Absolutely. Was the $240 claim valid? Perhapse. But the agreement they reached was $250 and that is enforcable. I guess I missed the point of this question.

4. I believe that the use of "consideration" in this instance is as a contract. I don't know the answer or even have a clue how to approach it. I'd say he should pay if he doesn't want God to strike him down for screwing the church. Best guess... he can be held liable for his donation. He made an agreement to pay... written contract or verbal... it's still an agreement.

[MaineExport]

Adequacy really doesn't have a play in this case. The court determines first if the fee is adequate. Nick

I think that the "adequacy" refers to the service... not the fee.

[90Q45blue]

Gotcha.

[HongKongChick]

oral agreements are enforceable when they can prove it, like a 3rd party or witness.

walker has to buy the violin becoz there was a contract, and he will be breaching a contract.

um...about the church...i would think that Price has to pay that 100 bucks since the church relied on that 100 for repair in order to raise 1000 bucks...

man, i hate business law, it's confusing, but hey i could be wrong with those since i am also in that class myself, and still learning... so...

oh also with that 250 bucks deal, yes it's enforceable..

[HongKongChick]

well a donor can refrain from donating unless the other party relies on the donation... like this:

A and B wanted to get married, but B got fired from his job, so they had doubts about getting married. A's uncle C said he will pay them 700 every month if they get married for 10 years. what if he refuses to pay that 700 after 5 years? and that A and B use that 700 to pay rent and living expenses. but C has to keep his promise to pay because that "gift" is what A and B rely on

or did i understand that wrong?

[MaineExport]

That argument sounds logical HKC... this is kind of why I don't like to try and answer these things. The situations are entirely hypothetical and from my experience with law text books... they are always trying to trick you into thinking one "thing" just to illustrate a point about another "thing."