Phung v Presti Case Analysis

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-servicePhung v Presti Case Review

Phung v Presti Case Study

 

 

Facts

In this case study, Phung orally agreed to sell a thoroughbred horse to Presti for $60, 000. When Presti sent a check in payment, Phung told him that he intended to hold the check for a month for tax purposes. Phung retained possession of the horse. While the check remained uncashed, a disagreement arose between Phung and Presti. Phung announced that he would not go through with the transaction and that, because the contract was oral, it was unenforceable. Presti claimed that his payment.

Issue

The question of the law is whether Phung’s claim that sending the check made the contract enforceable, is valid.

Holding

My decision in this situation would be that the claim by Presti that sending the check made the agreement enforceable is valid and hence the contract with Phung was enforceable and binding.  Therefore, Presti is entitled to an order of specific performance to compel Phung to complete or go through with the transaction involving the sale of the thoroughbred horse. I agree with Presti that by sending the $60, 000 check to Phung, a valid and enforceable contract came into existence between the parties since this served as a sufficient consideration for the horse.

Reasoning

I based my decision in the above case study on the principles of the sufficiency of consideration and promissory estoppel. Since the basis of a contract is the exchange of promises between the parties involved, consideration refers to the what the parties have bargained for. That is, consideration is what one party receives as a benefit and the detriment that the other party suffers (Adamson, 2008). In Thomas v. Thomas (1842), the court defined consideration as anything which has value in the eyes of the law.  In this case, Presti gave Phung a check worth $60, 000 as payment for the horse which Phung decided to hold for tax purposes. This check constitutes a valuable consideration for the price of the horse unless Phung can prove that it was a fake one which would be dishonored at the bank. It represented an exchange for Phung's promise to sell the horse to him, and hence sending this check to him made an otherwise unenforceable contract enforceable since the general rule is that oral contracts are valid as long as all the elements of a contract are present. These elements include an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations (Adamson, 2008)........................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY