Question

Bob Areebob is a recognized French horn player. Bob has played as a freelance musician for several major symphonies. Last year Bob went through bankruptcy and in order to pay his rent for a couple of months took out loans from a small savings institution - Avarice Bank - and pledged his french horn as collateral. He was unable to make the first payment on the loan so the bank was getting ready to take the french horn for non-payment. Bob approached the director of the Gilroy Philarmonic International Symphony - Joe Dogooder - for help - asking him to guarantee payment so he does not lose his french horn. Joe agreed to guarantee the payment - partially because Bob is scheduled as the featured performer at the Classic Polka Festival in Gilroy which Joe manages. Joe called Avarice Bank and said if Bob could not pay, he would, and Avarice accepted his guaranty by phone. Bob played for the Polka Festival; it was a big hit and very successful, but immediately after, left town with Sally Swansong, the well-known international Polka singer/dancer, and their whereabouts are unknown. Avarice has contacted Joe and indicated they have not collected from Bob and they expect him to pay the debt. Joe told Avarice they did not have anything in writing from him (though there are witnesses who heard Joe guarantee payment) and he believes he will not be liable for Bob's debt. Avarice has indicated it will file suit for payment against Joe. Discuss both sides of this case, indicating who should prevail and why. Use the Issue: what is the legal issue/dispute? Decision: who should prevail? Support: support for your decision.

Answer 1

ANSWER:

Issue: Oral agreement; without proper documentation of what was agreed upon.

Decision: Avarice will loss the case, and Joe will be set free by the court.

Support: Because Avarice does not have any valid prove to show that Joe accepted to repay Bob loans in case he fails to pay up, the court will assume Avarice is forging a claim on Joe. A withiness only comes to court to testify the validity of a prove. Because Avarice does not have any prove, the witness is as good as nothing.

The court will dismiss the case because Avarice became unethical by granting the request made by Joe without any signed agreement or recorded call conversation.