Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

pre-liminary, pre-trial strategy. Re: Cases Contracts and Agreements

Expand Messages
  • T M
    There are two pages of definitions on contracts and agreements STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE in CTC3! Great stuff! Amazing to find such a clear,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 29, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      There are two pages of 'definitions' on 'contracts and
      agreements' STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE in CTC3! Great
      stuff! Amazing to find such a clear, concise definition in the
      'code' of ANY state... since they routinely ignore them and do
      everthing through threat, intimidation, duress and fraud.

      Seems part of a good pre-trial, pre-liminary strategy would be to
      find the corelating (-insert your state here-) code on the essense
      of contracts in your demand for a more definitive statement of the
      "nature and cause" of what you are being 'charged' with. After
      all, don't you need to be clear on ALL the terms to FULLY
      understand them BEFORE you make a decision on whether to 'accept'
      them (for value or as a surety)? -Todd

      --- Admin@... wrote:
      Cases Contracts and Agreements

      Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 552.
      "Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of
      enforcement. Without the remedy the contract may, indeed, in the
      sense of the law, be said not to exist, and its obligation to fall
      within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for
      their fulfillment wholly upon the will of the individual. The ideas
      of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the
      obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against
      invasion. The obligation of a contract 'is the law which binds the
      parties to perform their agreement.'" RED CROSS LINE vs. ATLANTIC
      FRUIT COMPANY. 264 U.S. 109, 68 L. Ed. 582, 44 S. Ct. 274 February
      18, 1924 Decided

      It is essential to the creation of a contract that there be a
      mutual or reciprocal assent. Sanford v. Abrams (1888) 24 Fla 181, 2
      So 373; Ross v. Savage (1913) 66 Fla 106, 63 So 148; McCay v. Sever
      (1929) 98 Fla 710, 124 So 44; United State Rubber Products, Inc. v.
      Clark (1941) 145 Fla 631, 200 So 385; Mann v. Thompson (1958, Fla
      App D1) 100 So 2d 634.

      That the assent be to a certain and definite proposition. Fincher
      v. Belk-Sawyer Co. (1961, Fla App D3) 127 So 2d 130; Goff v. Indian
      Lake Estates, Inv. (1965, Fla App D2) 178 So 2d 910; Hewitt v.
      Price (1969, Fla App D3) 222 So 2d 247.

      Without a meeting of the minds of the parties on an essential
      element, there can be no enforceable contract. Hettenbaugh v.
      Keyes-Ozon-Fincher Ins., Inc. (1962, Fla App D3) 147 So 2d 328;
      Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc. (1965, Fla App D2) 178 So 2d 910.

      In order to form a contract, the parties must have a distinct
      understanding, common to both, and without doubt or difference.
      Unless all understand alike, there can be no assent, and therefore
      no contract. Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln (1927) 94 Fla 1097, 115
      So 498; Minsky's Follies of Florida, Inc v. Sennes (1953 206 F2d 1;
      O'neill v. Corporate Trustees, Inc. (1967) 376 F2d 818.

      Until the terms of the agreement have received the assent of both
      parties, the negotiation is open and imposes no obligation on
      either. Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc. (1965 Fla App D2) 178 So
      2d 910: Carr v. Duval (1840) 39 US 77, 10 L Ed 361.

      The assent of each party must be freely given; a contract entered
      into as a result of the exercise of duress or undue influence by
      the other party, or procured by the fraud of one of the parties,
      lacks the essential element of real assent and may be avoided by
      the injured party. Wall v. Bureau of Lathing and Plastering (1960,
      Fla App D3) 117 So 2d 767.

      An actual assent by the parties upon exactly the same matters is
      indispensable to the formation of a contract. Bullock v. Hardwick
      (1947) 158 Fla 834, 30 So 2d 539: Hettenbaugh v. Keyes- Ozon -
      Fincher Ins. , Inc (1962, Fla App D3) 147 So 2d 328: General
      Finance Corp. V. Stratton (1963 Fla App D1) 156 So 2d 664.

      =====
      Redemptive Dominion Missions
      (Overseer: Todd Michael; Haus Von Weisser)
      Temporary Post location: 8223 South Quebec, I-138,
      From without the city-state of: Englewood [80112] Colorado,
      sojourning on Planet Earth, under the Law and Jurisdiciton
      of the Kingdom of Heaven

      Old Website: http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/rdm

      ----LEGAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
      This document along with any attachment(s) is intended only for the individual or entity recipient that is named above. If you are not the intended recipient, as specified by the sender, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in relation to the contents of the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited, and you are commanded to destroy this document in its entirety, and notify the sender. Access to this document by any other person or entity is unauthorized. "All rights are reserved, Without Prejudice"



      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
      http://my.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.