Case Study: Richard Martin V. Richard Griffin

1. Richard Griffin will not be allowed to testify. Just because a bank officer “assured” him that he would only owe 25 percent of whatever balance was unpaid, it was not written into the loan. As per the parole evidence rule which states that when two parties make an integrated contract, neither one may use parole evidence to contradict, vary or add to its terms. Mr. Griffin is bound by the loan that he had signed and not by what they had agreed to that wasn’t in the loan agreement. Since there wasn’t anything stated about the loan being ambiguous or incomplete as well as a concern with fraud, misrepresentation or duress, there will not be any exceptions made for Mr. Griffin’s case.
2. While morally, if he did make a promise, then he would be ethically bound to do the right thing and pay child support. However, verbal promises in consideration of marriage is unenforceable unless it is in writing. It doesn’t matter what he said to her, since it was not written down, she will not be getting any child support. Florida actually has statutes that allow for a man to fight for rights to not be held financially accountable called “Disestablishment of Paternity.” The Requirements to Disestablish Paternity: a-The Father must have discovered new evidence that he is not the biological parent of the child b-You need a properly done DNA test shows that person is

7. It depends on the type of condition, since it will determine who must prove the source of the fire. Commercial Union Insurance made the claim that the clause was a condition precedent which is that an event must occur before a duty arises. Which means that Redux has the burden of proving the fire was not arson. Redux argued that the clause was a condition subsequent, which is a type of condition that must occur after a duty has arisen. Which means that CU became liable to pay benefits as soon as the fire started. The only way they could escape their duty would only be if the insurer proved Redux had committed