Jack Should Argue The Many Defenses He Has Against Enforceme

Jack Should Argue The Many Defenses He Has To Enforcement Of An Allege

Jack should argue the many defenses he has to enforcement of an alleged agreement of purchase with Jill. Firstly, there are many concerns about Jack’s capacity to enter into a binding agreement. Jack is a minor and can legally enter a contractual agreement. His age however may be enough to defend enforcement and to successfully disaffirm his contract that was signed between Jack and Jill for most items. If however, the contractual promises involve necessaries such as food, clothing, shelter, or medical care he may not be able to disaffirm and escape his obligations.

If a minor enters a contract for an unnecessary or luxury item, this contract probably can be disaffirmed. The rules of law indicate that he may be able to disaffirm up until the date of his 18th birthday or a reasonable time after. Relating to Jack’s minority status, it is notable that Jill and Jack (who is not old enough to drink legally) were sharing alcoholic drinks. Since Jack was arguably intoxicated from alcohol, he may not have been able to make a reasonable decision about the purchase of a vehicle and if intoxicated enough may be able to argue as a defense that he lacked capacity to contract with Jill. If involuntarily intoxicated Jack would have an even stronger defense to enforcement.

Because Jill previously worked as Jack’s lawyer, she was (and is arguably still) in a position of power or trust in Jack’s life. Coming from a position of legal confidence, it may be argued that Jill is exerting undue influence on Jack in order to sell her car to him and that Jill was using her position in Jack’s life to take advantage of him and benefit from his misfortune. This exertion of undue influence may render both the contract of sale and the arbitration agreement voidable if Jack is successful in asserting his defenses. In addition to concerns about the exercise of undue influence, it is apparent that this agreement was entered into under duress meeting the definition of use or threat of force to induce the contract.

During negotiations in this case, the facts suggest that Jill acted aggressively and especially if using physical force or threats of physical force intimidated Jack into an acceptance that he agreed to while he was under duress perhaps making the contract voidable. The conditions surrounding proof of mutual assent between Jack and Jill are already grim, but there are also other problems with the formation of the contract itself. Jill would have to prove offer and mirror image acceptance, consideration, Jack’s capacity, and a legal subject matter. While Jill originally offered to sell her car for $20,000, the contract ultimately was for sale at $23,000. This arguably violates the mirror-image rule of contract acceptance and therefore should be considered a counter offer.

Counter offers refer to any small changes that are made compared to the original offer. For an acceptance to be legally binding, the acceptance should be identical to the counter offer. Otherwise, it is both a rejection which terminates the offer and at the same time another counter offer. Although there are many issues with the agreement between Jack and Jill, Jill does have some legal arguments to uphold the contract and protect her position. Jill can argue that the agreement of arbitration between Jill and Jack should prevent this case from being presented to a court of law for a decision by a judge or jury.

Jill modified the offered price after some negotiation with Jack and after Jack’s counter-offer including professional cleaning services. Jack’s counter-offer shows definite and serious intent (required to prove an offer) to purchase the vehicle. The next day, after having some time to consider the agreement and contract of sale, Jack paid the $23,000 for the car. This may undermine any claims by Jack of intoxication or incapacity – the time interval undermining the defenses. Additionally, the parol evidence rule might prevent Jack from testifying about the initial $20,000 offer since this was an oral negotiation that arguably became part of the final agreement and sale.

In any case, the requirement of consideration for each of their promises—defined as a bargained-for exchange of value—is evident. It does appear that the parties’ negotiations resulted in both an offer and an acceptance with each of their promises supported by consideration. The offer contains the essential terms identifying the parties, the subject (the car), the price, the quantity, and a time for performance. The proposed sale and acceptance of the car is for a lawful subject matter – no law against a private sale of an automobile. Jill could also counter any claims of duress or undue influence.

Although she spoke passionately during negotiations, she could argue that she did not act violently toward Jack. It can also be argued that because she is no longer Jack’s lawyer, she is therefore no longer in a position of trust and confidence with regard to Jack and therefore that there was no undue influence. This case has many issues including an offeree’s capacity as an intoxicated minor, violation of the mirror image rule, the parol evidence rule, and defenses to formation of an agreement if acceptance was the result of undue influence or duress. If I were presented this case as a judge, I would conclude that Jack should not be bound to the contract because he entered the agreement as a minor, under duress by a person exercising undue influence, while drunk.

While Jill’s claims do have some merit, they may not be enough to overcome the defenses that may be presented in this case. How the American Disability Act Benefits College Students with Disabilities Students need to work hard in order to obtain better academic results in different subjects. Especially for international students and students with disabilities, they need to spend extra time and attention to complete the tasks. For example, students with disabilities may have low self-esteem or may lack abilities to complete their work on time compared to normal students. In order to make sure that they have equal rights and opportunities with normal students, the United States government created the American Disability Act to make their daily lives more convenient.

This act allows students with disabilities in the United States to be more comfortable in their living places and academic performance as well. The American Disability Act provides students with disabilities with benefits to help them adopt normal lives. The Act is beneficial in different aspects such as extra time for tests and exams, assistance in taking notes in various classes, and special accommodations for different facilities. Therefore, this paper will provide relevant examples to explain how the American Disability Act helps students with disabilities in these aspects. The American Disability Act is the current text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L.), which became effective on January 1, 2009.

The act has different changes over the years, making the law better equipped to protect people with disabilities in an all-rounded way. This is because in the past, many situations were difficult to define as a disability issue or not; therefore, the act needed improvements to address these situations. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 made a number of significant changes to the definition of "disability" to ensure that the definition is broadly construed and applied without extensive analysis. It aimed to restore the broad scope of the ADA, making it easier for individuals to establish that they have a disability.

See Public Law 110–325, sec. 2(a)(3) (7). The Department made several major revisions to the meaning of “disability” in the ADA regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act. These revisions clarified that “disability” shall be interpreted broadly and emphasized that the focus in ADA cases should be whether entities have complied with their obligations not to discriminate based on disability. The regulations expanded the definition of “major life activities” by including a non-exhaustive list that explicitly includes operation of major bodily functions. They also added rules for determining if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

The data supporting the estimates in the Final Regulatory Assessment focus on (1) the increase in requests for and receipt of accommodations—such as extra time on exams—by postsecondary students and test-takers following the ADA changes, and (2) the actual costs of providing these accommodations, including staff training, processing requests, and additional proctoring time. For postsecondary institutions and testing entities, costs are broken down into: the one-time cost of training staff, annual costs of processing accommodation requests, and additional proctoring costs.

Disability discrimination encompasses different unfavorable treatments, including harassment or inaccessibility to buildings and transportation. Typically, this discrimination occurs when entities covered under the ADA or Section 504 treat individuals unfairly because of their disability, history of disability, or association with someone who has a disability. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided many cases relating to disability discrimination across various settings such as employment and public accommodations.

In Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (2005), the Court held that the ADA applies to foreign cruise ships operating in U.S. waters, indicating concerns about accessibility and special care in public transportation. Similarly, in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002), the Court clarified that an impairment substantially limits a major life activity if it prevents or significantly restricts the individual from performing activities of central importance to most people's daily lives. The law aims to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in many aspects of life, including employment and public services.

Moreover, the Court in Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp. (1999) clarified that a person could pursue an ADA claim even if they previously filed a claim under the Social Security Act alleging inability to work. This underscores the law's protective scope for students with disabilities in workplace and educational settings. In Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017), the Supreme Court effectively allowed students to directly sue under the ADA and Section 504 without first going through an administrative process under IDEA, especially when their claims are unrelated to educational adequacy. This emphasizes the Act's role in safeguarding students' rights in various contexts.

In conclusion, the Americans with Disabilities Act, originally published in 1990 and amended in 2008, significantly benefits students with disabilities. It ensures they can achieve academic success, live comfortably with suitable facilities, and avoid discrimination in workplaces and public services. The Act provides essential protections, supports inclusivity, and promotes equal opportunities, thereby integrating individuals with disabilities more fully into society.

References

  • United States Department of Justice. (2009). Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. Pub. L. No. 110–325.
  • FindLaw. (2005). Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/545/119.html
  • FindLaw. (2002). Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/534/184.html
  • FindLaw. (1999). Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/526/795.html
  • FindLaw. (2017). Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-supreme-court/2017/02/22/278663.html
  • United States Department of Justice. (2023). ADA Facts and Figures. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/
  • National Disability Rights Network. (2020). The Impact of ADA Amendments Act. NDRN Report.
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2021). Disability Discrimination and the ADA. EEOC Resource.
  • American Bar Association. (2019). Rights of Students with Disabilities in Education and Employment.
  • Smith, J., & Brown, L. (2022). Accessibility and Inclusion: Legal Perspectives on Disabilities. Journal of Disability Law, 15(3), 45-67.

Related Assignments