The case of Hauer vs. Union State Bank of Wautoma Research Paper

The case of Hauer vs. Union State Bank of Wautoma - Research Paper Example To change the entire Boiler 2. To repair the Boiler When the plumber had gone there to check for the boiler, he had informed his boss Barkley that the boiler needs to be replaced and not repaired. Let us analyse the facts to get a clearer understanding. â€Å"While inspecting the non-operating boiler at Chetum’s building, the plumber notices that the boiler is one that has been recalled by the manufacturer, Housewarm, because of a defect that does not allow all the carbon monoxide produced by the boiler to vent properly. This boiler was purchased by Chetum at a salvage yard and replaced another non-operating boiler. Further, the boiler has been improperly installed, according to the plumber. The plumber notifies Barkley of the problems with the boiler and Barkley immediately notifies Chetum. Chetum tells Barkley that he does not want to purchase a new boiler. He asks if the existing boiler can be fixed to get through the winter months. Barkley calls his plumber who is still a t the Chetum site and asks the plumber about a quick fix for the winter. The plumber tells Barkley he would not recommend the quick fix for the winter as this boiler is defective and has been recalled.† Looking at the facts, it can be directly inferred that the boiler which was in the building was defective and should have been replaced. However, to save costs and other expenditures, Chetum did not want that to happen and therefore asked for the boiler to be repaired. It is pertinent to note that the boiler which had been installed in the building was not only improperly installed but also was defective. Therefore there was an urgent need to replace the boiler, which was concurred by the plumber but not approved by Chetum. The question which arises right now is... The case of Hauer vs. Union State Bank of Wautoma One of the most fundamental principles of Contract Law is that an individual who is below the age of 18 cannot enter into contracts with other parties. This law also applies to situations which consist of an individual entering into contracts to represent a firm which has been established under law. Applying the law to the facts, we understand that Barkley was not eligible to enter into Contract with Chetum. Along with this, Barkley is not eligible to represent the firm of his father in his absence. Therefore, looking at the overall perspective of Contractual Obligations, Barkley could not have entered into a contract with any other party. In case a contract has been entered upon between a minor and some other party, then such contract happens to not be legally binding on the parties although the work of the contract may be carried out and performed by the parties. According to the facts taken hypothetically, Knarles was aware that his firm consisted of a number of plumbers whose lic enses had not been renewed in the current year, and in spite of that his firm had sent one of them to a client by the name of Chetum, to do the repair work. Looking at the facts of the case, it can be inferred that there was not material breach of fundamental breach of contract. On the contrary, there is a case of tortious negligence on the part of Chetum. Along with this, he entered into a contract with a minor. Keeping these two facts into account, there is no breach of contract.