Case

1. The warners obtained a loan on an inherited piece of property, and convinced the suttons topurchase the property. It was orally agreed that the Suttons would make all mortgage payments and pay the taxes on the property and they would be able to complete the purchase anytime over the next five years. After hour and one-half years, the Warner’s reneged on the agreement. The Suttons sued for specific performance, having made all the requisite payments, as well as significant improvments. The trial court found for the Suttons under the theory of part performance, and this was upheld upon appeal. The Warners would have won as per the Statute of Frauds. But, the equitable doctrine of part performance provides that when an oral contract that should have been in writing has been partially performed, and it is impossible to return the parties to status quo, specific performance can be applied by the court. The warners did not act ethically in this case.

2. Walmart’s Standards provide some degree of protection to foreign workers because it expects its foreign suppliers to adhere to local law and local industry working conditions but walmart reserves the right to inspect the suppliers and it is not bound by a duty to inspect them. But Walmart should take responsibility and inspect foreign suppliers to provide the same protections to their workers .

3. Turner manifested the intent to enter into a contract with Mc David. It was Turner’s principal negotiator’s unethical behavior that caused the breach of contract between Turner and McDavid. Turner probably backed out of this deal since the negotiator already signed a final agreement to sell the assets to Atlanta Spirit. It is advisable for oral agreements to be enforced. Business people must stay bound to their word. It is breach of the contract.