Case Parker V. Glosson

CASE PARKER V. GLOSSON 4

CaseParker V. Glosson

CaseParker V. Glosson

Theappeals court held that no contract ever came into existence, sothere could be no breach of contract. Why was Douglas Glosson’ssignature not enough? Under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale ofreal property clause 13, it is expressly provided that agreementsbecome binding only when both parties communicated have fullyexecuted the set conditions. The conclusion would be that neither thebuyer nor the seller was willing to be bound into an agreement untilwhen both parties had signed off.

Ina dispute, Douglas and Sandy Glosson are recognized as the “sellers”as stipulated on the first page of the agreement, Findlaw (2014),however, under the seller signatory part it is only Douglas Glossonwho ends up signing while Sandy Glosson opts from signing. As amatter of law, the agreement cannot be recognized as binding as itwas intended that all parties involved had to execute their obligatedduties as implied by the condition that parties involved had signedinto the agreement. Therefore, until executed by both parties theagreement stands as incomplete and inchoate and can never beconsidered as a valid contract. On its own, this is exceptionallytrue since the agreement had expressly provided that was to bebinding only when both parties involved had signed (Meiners, et al,2012).

Theparties apparently did agree to all relevant terms, but then SandyGlosson backed out. Should she have the right to do that afteragreeing? Sandy Glosson had a right in backing out due to the natureof the contract since her signature was required in making a fullagreement, Cornell (2014). Also based on sufficiency of writingstipulated under the Statue of Frauds (1677) that is meant as “Anact of Preventing Frauds and Perjuries,&quot the contract had tovoid since Sandy did not make any necessary writing as stipulated byher failure to sign a contract. It can be noted that Sandy opted outfrom bound by the agreement and hence the contract had to be revisedin order to omit her name, or it had to be considered void.

References

CornellUniversity Law School (2014),Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute.Retrieved July 3rd, 2014 fromhttp://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2007/060740-1.htm

Courtof Appeals of North Carolina641 S.E.2d 735 (2007)

Findlaw(2014), Findlaw for legal professionals, retrieved July 3rd,2014 from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1327452.html

Meiners,R. E., Ringleb, A. H., &amp Edwards, F. L. (2012). The legalenvironment of business. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.