Neugent v. Beroth and the Estate of Salome Duran Case Study
NEUGENT v. BEROTH OIL COMPANY
Summary of the existing facts:
Beroth began to sell to the plaintiff motor oil in or before January 1995,. Since then till November, 30th, 1995 the parties pursuant operated with plaintiffs Amoco DSA and Amoco leases, that Beroth, attained when he bought from Amoco, the oil stations. The motor oil prices were set by the Amoco DSA at their dealer-buying price. The price changes took effect immediately, mainly in Amoco motor fuel sales facilitates that were by then in location, as the title to the mentioned products transferred to the dealer from Amoco. The controversy lays in the fact that Walter Beroth, the plaintiff, stated that he was not aware of the price changes, made in the buying prices by the Amoco dealer. He argued that the defendant went against the Beroth DSA contract. His main contention is that the prices that Beroth was quoting were not initially in the agreement. It makes up the basis of the case (Hollowell, 2005).
The main issues in the case include the assigning of the courts trials as mistaken by the plaintiff on issues that included summary judgment granting for defendants on claims of the plaintiff where there existed material fact issues that included; fraud, civil conspiracy, contract breach, and deceptive and unfair trade practice on their transactions.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant automatically committed a breach in October 1994, created contract by increasing the charges per gallon delivery to 1.427 cents. Such perspective seems to be favoring the plaintiff. However, further analysis disagrees with this since it is clear that there is failure by the evidence to prove that the meeting an oral contract was reached in October 1994. Failure of plaintiff at bar, to prove the creation of an oral contract has aided in his failure to prove his case. There was a claim by plaintiff that Vernic Beroth or Walter at that meeting offered to the plaintiff the oil sales. However, they have both denied this offer and state that they just discussed motor fuel prices. It can be viewed that he failed to avail proof for his claim. He failed in all accounts, to produce support for his accusations to counter those the alleged produced.
His evidence included showing that Beroth; acquired the said property from Mr. Peddycord, bought the station from Amoco, Assumed the Amoco DSA and Amoco lease, and on or about 18th January 1995, began supplying plaintiff motor fuel. In addition, he does not have any tangible proof on the results of the meeting they had in October 1994. He was also wrong when he thought that they could be bound by the oral contract. UCC, regulations actually dictated that a contract for goods sales that exceeded above ($500.00) of five hundred dollars or more needs for some sufficient writing to indicate that a sales contract has been made and signed by those involved and those the petition is against. The analysis can conclude that since the records show that after the motor fuel started to be sold to the plaintiff by Beroth, pursuant to the Beroth DSA and Amoco, the motor fuel deliveries prices clearly exceeded $500.00. In this perspective, we point out that since October 1994, meeting no formal contract was formed by those involved, it makes the case weak, and thus the rack price does not hold (Kelleher, Currie & Hancook LLP, 2011).
Recommendations would be on affirming that part of the courts trial should be on reviewing the plaintiffs initial claim of alleged oral breach of contract, indulge more on the counterclaim from Beroth on past due rents, also on possibility of basing a contract on oral standings that can further help bring new light to the Beroth case.
The Estate of Salome Duran Case Study
Summary of the existing facts:
In Taos, a widow named Macarita Sanchez owned 11.392 acres of land, she had five children and when she died in 1932, she intestate her property to her children. Cinesio, Evilia, Felipe and Donaciana, thereupon became cotenant owners they agreed on how they were going to share it orally. Salome, the mothers brother later in 1945 took charge of the land, as such paid for the tract of land-accumulated taxes, and as such supposedly owned it. Since then until his death in 1998, Salome conveyed the property in joint, ownership between him and his wife, who took subsequent ownership until her death. Cinesio and Evilia after Salomes death were the only surviving children of Macarita. They expressed an interest to the estate stating that to them the agreement had been void, since they had never confirmed if they could annul it, and this was their basis for their case.
The main problem is that the uncle or guardian acquired their land through adverse possession mainly without stating clear intent. The petitioners argue that the decedents transfer of land to his wife was not legal and it had malice in it. On these grounds, since their kinship entitled them to have more claim, they argue that the property should be returned to them without the other parties having shares in the property (Blond, Chen & Marafino, 2009).
In evaluating such cases the statutes set include there being a requirement for parties claiming adverse possession of land must not only give irrefutable but clear evidence of the claim, that include over ten years tax payment on the lands. The petitioners claim that even though the decadents possession was not more permissive than hostile, if looked at independently it is clear that the decedent still lacked a good faith color or good will on the title. In addition, under the case law and the statutes interpretation it still lacked in some aspects, since many issues were unresolved. Thus, it can be summed up that by denying the motion for a petition it was an error on the district courts part. That saw it pass its judgment that the respondents through adverse possession could only acquire the decedents titles.
With the above analysis the main problem lies, in the gap that is between the twenty years since the oral agreement was made between the five siblings. It would have been better for them to establish a more stable and recognized form of establishing their ownership as opposed to the verbal agreement. The deficiency in the verbal partition could have been sorted if the petitioners had taken the tact by then. By simply doing or asserting acts that would affirm their entitleship and acceptance to the verbal or oral agreement. No such findings were ever found or made by the court or rather the district court.
In conclusion, the case should not be centralized on the extended passage of time and the hefty taxes as the grounds of dividing the property. However, from the analysis of the courts decision one can also draw his own conclusion and state that these decisions were not in any way consistent with the Gurule requirements. These rules provide a clause for our precedent and voidable contract regarding the effect of the tax deeds issuance. It states that an issued tax deed to a person who initially had rights jointly with others to the property as a covenant before the tax evasion or delinquency does not in any form destroy the initially held power of contingency. It is with this understanding that it can be concluded that the petition on the property would not stand under any grounds based on these evidence (Merrill & Smith, 2010).