U.S. v. Williams, 922 F.2d 737 (11th Cir. 1991) example

Haven't found the essay you need?

We can write it for you. On time. 100% original.

Order Now
Text Preview

U.S. v. Williams, 922 F.2d 737 (11th Cir. 1991)


On 7th August 1981, (CPS), bought a leasehold interest from Bretons. CPS paid the Bretons $35,000.00 as a down payment during the time of the agreement (Grant, 2011). CPS was obligated to add additional payment on 15th March 1982. Therefore, a final payment in the total of $56,250.00 was to be paid by 15th March 1983 (Grant, 2011). The contract additionally needed CPS to pay taxes, interest, assessments, and rent to the simple owner, utilities and insurance. CPS made every payment under the contract except for the last payment of around $56,250.00 (Grant, 2011). This payment needed be made as a final closing where all of the operations from each party would be needed to be completed simultaneously.

Prior Proceedings

The case was brought before the County of Honolulu Land Court after being filed by the CPS on 30th June 1983, claiming it was allowed to rescind the contract and recuperate the damages. However, on 17th October the same year, the Bretons counterclaim their CPS claim by seeking contract cancelation because of nonpayment of the final payment (Huddlestone, 2010). The Bretons Petitioned to cancel the Contract of Sale on 8th August 1983

Issues Presented

The Bretons sought to terminate the Contract of Sale of a Leasehold interest and damages. The Bretons claimed that Central Pacific Supply Corporation had breached the contract by evasion on the payment and by evacuating the premises (Benson, 1991). The Bretons also claimed they were uninformed that the Central Pacific Supply Corporation had opened a suit in court.

The Objectives and Arguments of the Parties

The Bretons asserted that the Central Pacific Supply Corporation had breached the contract by evasion on the payment based on the agreement stipulated during the time of the contract. They supposed that the petition was to be granted to them since the CPS breached the contract agreed upon. Thus, Bretons moved to reject CPS's grievance in federal court too. The CPS did argue that this holding was mistaken because of the unlawfulness of the easement document as the City and County laws, and regulations were not respected and followed (Grant, 2011).

Rule of Law

Since the land court has a limited jurisdiction, formed for special reasons, it derives its power from the statutes linked to it, and it cannot exercise power not got within such statutes. The CPS’s counterclaim and Bretons’ petition both are a breach of agreement actions that the land court is not having jurisdiction. "No person will designate any easements unless it obeys to the requirements of these regulations and rules and gets approval (Grant, 2011)." The Bretons did not also comply with this requirement and law. Lack of obedience with the sub-division compliance involves criminal penalties of imprisonment and fine.

Saint Leo Main Values Displayed

The law implementation officers dishonored the Saint Leo Core Respect and Integrity and Integrity values when they dishonored the suspect rights by using unnecessary physical force during the time of …

Download Full Essay Show full preview


Examples provided by Homework Lab are intended for the motivation and research purposes only. Do not submit any paper as your own piece of work. Every essay example belongs to students, who hold the copyright for the written content. Please, mind that the samples have been submitted to the Turnitin before and may show plagiarism in case of the repeated submission. Homework Lab does not bear any responsibility for the unauthorized submission of the examples.