Business and Personal Law

Chapter 5: Elements of a Contract

Case Study Extended Practice

1. Dusenka owned a tavern. He assigned all his interests in the tavern to his son. After he did so, he continued to work at the tavern helping out his son. Sometimes, his wife, who was not the son's mother, came along with her husband, and worked in the tavern. She cleaned and cooked and served, but she was never paid for her services. The entire time Mrs. Dusenka was working with her husband in the tavern, she believed her husband owned the tavern. She did not realize that he had assigned his interests to his son. After her husband died, the son asked Mrs. Dusenka to keep working in the tavern. The son also agreed to pay her for her work. At this time, Mrs. Dusenka learned that her husband had actually transferred interest in the tavern to his son long before he had died. Mrs. Dusenka wants back pay for all the time she was actually working for the son when her husband was still alive. Should she get paid? Dusenka v. Dusenka, 221 MN, 234.
2. Quality Motors, Inc. told Hays, who was 16, that, although they would not sell him a car because he was a minor, they would sell the car to an adult and then show Hays how to transfer title from the adult into his name. Hays returned with a 23-year-old friend. Quality Motors sold the car to Hays' friend and then told Hays about a notary public who would transfer the car's title. After the title was transferred, Hays' father discovered his son's deceit and tried to compel Quality Motors to take the car back. Quality refused, arguing that, because the car had been sold to an adult, Hays could not disaffirm the contract. Do you agree with Quality? Why or why not? Quality Motors v. Hays, 225 S.W.2d 326 (AR).
3. After Lonchyna, a minor, enlisted in the U.S. Air Force he applied for and received three educational delays that postponed the beginning of his tour of duty. When the time finally arrived for active duty, Lonchyna claimed he could void the contract since he had entered into it when he was a minor. Is Lonchyna correct? Why or why not? Lonchyna v. Brown, Secretary of Defense, 491 F. Supp. 1352 (ND, IL).
4. Aunt Tillie loved her eight-year-old nephew Charley very much. Charley received good grades in school and was very nice to Aunt Tillie. Aunt Tillie wanted to take care of Charley so she wrote him out a promissory note for $3,000 payable on her death. Later, when she died, Charley tried to exercise the note and collect his money. The estate refused to pay. Charley sued Aunt Tillie’s estate on the theory that they were in breach of a written contract. Should Charley get his money? Dougherty v. Salt, 227 NY, 200.
5. Two partners operate an illegal business. When one partner decides he wants out, he goes to court to dissolve the partnership and get his half of the proceeds and accounts. Should he get his money? Chateau v. Singla, 114 CA. 91.