Contract Hypothetical

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
stad2234
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:35 pm

Contract Hypothetical

Postby stad2234 » Wed May 05, 2010 7:55 pm

Person A and person B agree that A will pay B a $250 studding fee for her dog to mate with A's dog. Although there is no formal contract written there are a number of signed emails that lay out the general terms agreed upon above. Person B's dog will remain under the supervision of person A during the time in which A's dog is in heat. Several weeks after the studding service is provided by B person A's dog gets an infection in her uterus and in order to save the dogs life person B must spay their dog. While A's dog is under anesthesia, at the request of person A, the vet confirms that A's dog is in fact NOT pregnant. A seeks to be reimbursed for the $250 stud fee due to the fact that their dog did not get pregnant and that person B's offering of another studding service at no charge is not an alternative due to the fact that A's dog is now spayed.

Keep in mind that it is common practice in the dog breeding industry that if a female does not take during the initial studding service that the service will be offered several times at no charge until the female whelps a litter of puppies. Also person A is under guardianship and conservatorship due to a head injury but B was not aware of this and A never made it clear to B that they were under guardianship or conservatorship


So this isnt actually a hypothetical but in fact a situation that a family member of mine had to deal with. Nonetheless, I think it makes for a pretty decent hypo and I am interested to see what everyone has to say about it.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Contract Hypothetical

Postby 270910 » Wed May 05, 2010 8:03 pm

stad2234 wrote:Person A and person B agree that A will pay B a $250 studding fee for her dog to mate with A's dog. Although there is no formal contract written there are a number of signed emails that lay out the general terms agreed upon above. Person B's dog will remain under the supervision of person A during the time in which A's dog is in heat. Several weeks after the studding service is provided by B person A's dog gets an infection in her uterus and in order to save the dogs life person B must spay their dog. While A's dog is under anesthesia, at the request of person A, the vet confirms that A's dog is in fact NOT pregnant. A seeks to be reimbursed for the $250 stud fee due to the fact that their dog did not get pregnant and that person B's offering of another studding service at no charge is not an alternative due to the fact that A's dog is now spayed.

Keep in mind that it is common practice in the dog breeding industry that if a female does not take during the initial studding service that the service will be offered several times at no charge until the female whelps a litter of puppies. Also person A is under guardianship and conservatorship due to a head injury but B was not aware of this and A never made it clear to B that they were under guardianship or conservatorship


So this isnt actually a hypothetical but in fact a situation that a family member of mine had to deal with. Nonetheless, I think it makes for a pretty decent hypo and I am interested to see what everyone has to say about it.


That's hilarious. Probably need more about the content of the emails to make something out of it, but you really have it all.

My answer: Victory for party A, court orders specific performance. The dog must be impregnated. Legal doctrine: maximum comedy

stad2234
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Contract Hypothetical

Postby stad2234 » Wed May 05, 2010 8:17 pm

See thats what I thought. I also brought up the point that person B was unjustly enriched because there was no consideration given on her part due to the fact that the $250 was paid with the end goal of the agreement being A's dog having a litter of puppies. Damn small claims court judge sided with B. I should have pushed my family member to pursue it further. Plus, the lady was a complete bitch which got on my nerves and i just wanted to beat her in court. HAHA

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Contract Hypothetical

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Wed May 05, 2010 8:29 pm

stad2234 wrote:See thats what I thought. I also brought up the point that person B was unjustly enriched because there was no consideration given on her part due to the fact that the $250 was paid with the end goal of the agreement being A's dog having a litter of puppies. Damn small claims court judge sided with B. I should have pushed my family member to pursue it further. Plus, the lady was a complete bitch which got on my nerves and i just wanted to beat her in court. HAHA

No one here gives legal advice. First of all, it wouldn't b great advice. We're stuck with only theoretical knowledge.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Contract Hypothetical

Postby 270910 » Wed May 05, 2010 8:31 pm

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
stad2234 wrote:See thats what I thought. I also brought up the point that person B was unjustly enriched because there was no consideration given on her part due to the fact that the $250 was paid with the end goal of the agreement being A's dog having a litter of puppies. Damn small claims court judge sided with B. I should have pushed my family member to pursue it further. Plus, the lady was a complete bitch which got on my nerves and i just wanted to beat her in court. HAHA

No one here gives legal advice. First of all, it wouldn't b great advice. We're stuck with only theoretical knowledge.


But your honor! In Raffles v. Wichelhause...

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Contract Hypothetical

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Wed May 05, 2010 8:35 pm

disco_barred wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
stad2234 wrote:See thats what I thought. I also brought up the point that person B was unjustly enriched because there was no consideration given on her part due to the fact that the $250 was paid with the end goal of the agreement being A's dog having a litter of puppies. Damn small claims court judge sided with B. I should have pushed my family member to pursue it further. Plus, the lady was a complete bitch which got on my nerves and i just wanted to beat her in court. HAHA

No one here gives legal advice. First of all, it wouldn't b great advice. We're stuck with only theoretical knowledge.


But your honor! In Raffles v. Wichelhause...

--ImageRemoved--




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lovesthelaw and 12 guests