Angel v. Murray: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=Supreme Court of Rhode Island | ||
|citation=322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) | |citation=322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) | ||
|date=1974 | |date=July 22, 1974 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|case_treatment=No | |case_treatment=No | ||
|facts=Murray is the director of finance of Newport, RI. The city entered into a contract with James Maher. Maher was to collect and remove all refuse from the city for a set amount of money. During the execution of the contract the city grew much more than expected, and Maher asked the city for $10,000 more to cover his costs. The city paid. The next year, the same thing happened and the city paid $10,000 more to Maher. Alfred Angel brought suit alleging that Maher had been illegally paid the $20,000. | |facts=Murray is the director of finance of Newport, RI. The city entered into a contract with James Maher. Maher was to collect and remove all refuse from the city for a set amount of money. During the execution of the contract the city grew much more than expected, and Maher asked the city for $10,000 more to cover his costs. The city paid. The next year, the same thing happened and the city paid $10,000 more to Maher. Alfred Angel brought suit alleging that Maher had been illegally paid the $20,000. | ||
|procedural_history=Trial court found that each $10,000 payment had been paid illegally. Superior court affirmed. | |procedural_history=Trial court found that each $10,000 payment had been paid illegally. Superior court affirmed. | ||
|issues=Are the subsequent contracts enforceable? Do they constitute consideration? | |issues=Are the subsequent contracts enforceable? Do they constitute consideration? | ||
|holding=The contracts are enforceable. | |holding=The contracts are enforceable. | ||
|judgment=Reversed. | |judgment=Reversed. | ||
|reasons=There was no coercion in the formation of the second contract. The city voluntarily agreed to the changes in the agreement. The changes in the conditions that led to the changes in the contract went beyond reasonable expectations at the time of forming the original contract, so it is reasonable that a new contract be created. Because the contract wasn’t fully performed by either party, the contract was changeable. | |reasons=There was no coercion in the formation of the second contract. The city voluntarily agreed to the changes in the agreement. The changes in the conditions that led to the changes in the contract went beyond reasonable expectations at the time of forming the original contract, so it is reasonable that a new contract be created. Because the contract wasn’t fully performed by either party, the contract was changeable. | ||
| | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
| | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/angel-v-murray | ||
| | |case_text_source=Quimbee video summary | ||
| | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/angel-v-murray | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 18:23, June 26, 2023
| Angel v. Murray | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
|---|---|
| Citation | 322 A.2d 630 (RI 1974) |
| Date decided | July 22, 1974 |
Facts
Murray is the director of finance of Newport, RI. The city entered into a contract with James Maher. Maher was to collect and remove all refuse from the city for a set amount of money. During the execution of the contract the city grew much more than expected, and Maher asked the city for $10,000 more to cover his costs. The city paid. The next year, the same thing happened and the city paid $10,000 more to Maher. Alfred Angel brought suit alleging that Maher had been illegally paid the $20,000.
Procedural History
Trial court found that each $10,000 payment had been paid illegally. Superior court affirmed.
Issues
Are the subsequent contracts enforceable? Do they constitute consideration?
Holding
The contracts are enforceable.
Judgment
Reversed.
Reasons
There was no coercion in the formation of the second contract. The city voluntarily agreed to the changes in the agreement. The changes in the conditions that led to the changes in the contract went beyond reasonable expectations at the time of forming the original contract, so it is reasonable that a new contract be created. Because the contract wasn’t fully performed by either party, the contract was changeable.
