Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
3. Will the sister succeed in an action against the brother in which she asks the court to order the brother to continue to make his payments to their mother under the terms of the sibling's contract?
There is a valid contract between the siblings, but their mother has declined to sue the brother.
The siblings made the agreed payments in January, February, and March. In April, however, the brother refused to make any payment and notified his sister and their mother that he would make no further payments.
The aged mother of a sister and brother, both adults, wished to employ a live-in companion so that she might continue to live in her own home. The mother, however, had only enough income to pay one-half of the companion's $2,000 monthly salary. Learning of their mother's plight, the sister and brother agreed with each other in a signed writing that on the last day of January and each succeeding month during their mother's lifetime, each would give their mother $500. Their mother then hired the companion.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Specific performance will be granted if (a) there is a valid contract, (b) there is an inadequate remedy at law, (c) the enforcement of the performance is feasible, and (d) no defenses apply; whether there is an inadequate remedy at law is the most important consideration. Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 359, 362 (1981). A legal remedy is normally inadequate if the damages are unique, difficult to calculate, impossible to collect, or the breaching party is insolvent.
A is correct. Here, there is a valid contract because the brother and sister entered into a signed agreement to give the mother $500 every month. It would also be difficult to calculate the monetary damages because the court cannot predict how many months the mother will live. Thus, the sister is entitled to specific performance.
B is incorrect. Here, the mother is an intended beneficiary of the contract made between the sister and the brother and can enforce her rights for the $500 monthly payment from each child. However, the mother's decision not to sue the brother will not impose a legal duty on the sister to pay the difference.
C is incorrect because it misstates the law; the court will not grant specific performance of service contracts, but can grant specific performance of a promise to pay money. The brother's promise to pay the mother $500 a month is not considered a service contract.
D is incorrect. As discussed above, the absence of economic harm to the sister does not preclude recovery for breach of contract because the mother was the intended beneficiary of their contract. Thus, because the siblings had a valid contract to pay the mother $500, the sister has a cause of action against the brother for breach of contract.