1. The plaintiffs—the Nicols, Hoerrs, Turners, and Andersons—purchased subdivision lots from Ken Nelson. The lots bordered an undeveloped tract and offered scenic views of an adjacent lake. When Nelson and his partners began taking steps to develop the

INSTRUCTIONS:  This writing assignment must be typed.  It must be turned in on time.  You may use your text to answer the questions.  Your answer should thoroughly discuss the law and any applicable exceptions.  You do not need to consult any other source other than your text in order to answer these questions, but may if you like as long as you cite to your source. 

 I do NOT want you to discuss every rule you have learned that even remotely applies to the facts.  I expect you to read the question carefully and use your common sense.  Most of these problems deal with only one issue, possibly two unless the question consists of more than one part.  Make sure you answer the question(s) asked.  Your answer to each problem or its subpart should not exceed 10 sentences and should not require that many. I will not penalize you if you make your responses longer but please keep them short.  Please submit your responses via Blackboard.  

I recommend that you read the document titled “Legal Analysis” before preparing your responses.

For each question you answer, please state the following:

legal issue (if not identified in the problem)

legal rule

analysis or application of the rule to the facts

your conclusion

Please note that this is a law course.  Therefore, you need to read problems paying close attention to the words used in the problem.  If the problem states there is a K, this means there is a k, and this is not the issue in the problem.  If the problem states there is an offer, then you need not state the rule for an offer.  Go from there.       

1.

The plaintiffs—the Nicols, Hoerrs, Turners, and Andersons—purchased subdivision lots from Ken Nelson.  The lots bordered an undeveloped tract and offered scenic views of an adjacent lake.  When Nelson and his partners began taking steps to develop the previously undeveloped tract, the plaintiffs sued.  The trial court found that the plaintiffs had purchased their lots only after receiving oral assurances from Nelson that (1) the tract would remain undeveloped open space, (2) the property was owned by a company that had no plans to build on the land, (3) he held an option to purchase the property if it became available, and (4) he would not develop the land if it came under his ownership.  Concluding that the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on Nelson’s oral promise, the trial court enjoined Nelson’s development of the property based on promissory estoppel.  Nelson appealed, arguing that the Statute of Frauds, which requires that contracts involving interests in real property be in writing, barred enforcement of his oral promise.  Is the trail court correct or is Nelson correct?  Discuss fully.  

 2.

Thelma, a law professor who recently obtained her driver’s license, bought a used car from Honest Bob’s Motors.  The car had numerous defects that were plainly apparent, and Honest Bob made various false material statements of fact about the car in order to make the sale.  However, Thelma paid no attention to these and bought the car because she thought Honest Bob was cute.  After purchasing the car, Thelma discovered that it was junk and tried to rescind.  Does she have the right to rescind?  Why or why not?