00:01
Smith and lee entered into an oral contract whereby lee would buy smith's house.
00:06
They intended to write up a written contract but never got around to it.
00:10
Lee grew tired of waiting for the written contract and moved into the house.
00:14
He also began to make improvements to it.
00:16
Then smith, realizing that the value of the property had significantly increased since his oral contract with lee sought to evict lee from the property.
00:25
A, discuss what legal theory or theory supports smith's actions, and b, discuss what arguments lee could make.
00:32
So let's start with the legal theory or theories that support smith.
00:38
So we're going to support smith.
00:43
So smith has not yet prepared a written contract and never informed lee to shift the house.
00:48
So there's no written contract and he never authorized or gave permission to lead to move into the house or make changes.
01:14
The value of the property was also not discussed when they entered into the oral contract.
01:30
Oral contracts are not accepted as law and indicate proper documentation needs to be done before any such deal is fixed and a mere oral discussion won't suffice...