Property Ownership Laws and Policies

Part 1:

Should the sophisticated business people be held to their bargains? Why?

Cem and Hakan should be held to their bargains and not get a refund for their deposits. This is because they had enough time during the bargaining period to evaluate all the possibilities of things that could happen to their purchases like terror attacks and voice the same to the contractors. This means that they failed on their part in asking the right questions during the bargaining period as opposed to assuming that the contractor and management would take care of their safety while in their penthouses. They had a valid reason but their approach in response to their security concerns invalidates their demands for the refund of their down payments. A court ruling that they needed not be held to their bargains would mean that the contracts in the real state could be changed to suit the needs of the plaintiff which is what the contract agreements are made to prevent (Find Law, 2004). 

Was it ethical for Cem and Hakan to try to back out of their purchase agreements and get their money back? Why?

Cem and Hakan were unethical in trying to back out of their purchase agreements and get their money back because they signed binding agreements. By paying the down payments, they had already committed to hold up their end of the bargain. It is important to note that if the brothers had backed out of their purchase agreements earlier on, the legal suit would not be in motion. Therefore, when looking at the ethical implications of their actions, the defendant was right not to refund the down payments received. The brothers had the chance of selling the units to other buyers instead of backing out of the deal and hence losing their money in the process and wasting their time seeking refunds on their own breach of the contract. The payment they made sealed their act of commitment irreversibly. The only way for Cem and Hakan to earn their money back would be to sell their units to third party buyers including rights to their initial down payments. This would mean that they would not have lost any money and trust from the real estate community in New York. Ethically, they should have approached 845 UN for renegotiation on the account of the 9/11 attack instead of backing out of the deal entirely as they did (Find Law, 2004).

Was it ethical for 845 UN not to pay Cem and Hakan their money back? Why?

Ethically, 845 UN was right not to pay the money back to Cem and Hakan because in the agreement it was refundable unless 845 UN breached their end of the bargain (Find Law, 2004). By the time Cem and Hakan were presenting their demand for a refund, 845 UN had not breached any part of the agreement. It was unethical for Cem and Hakan to expect a refund yet they were the ones who acted in breach of the agreement. This is because during the negotiation, payment of the down payment and the signing of the agreement, the four units were not being advertised and would have maybe attracted more serious buyers earning the investor better profits. The legal suit in this incidence was an attempt by the brothers to get their money back in whatever way but the terror attack presented them a perfect plan. The brothers would have earned their money back by following through with the purchase and selling it off to a third party. This would have ensured that neither side would be tied in a law suit. 845 UN was ethically right not to refund Cem and Hakam.

Part 2:

When does a negotiation end and a binding contract exist/begin?

The negotiation ends when the terms of a contract have been agreed on by both parties. This means no duress or any form of forced agreements by any party. When all the terms and conditions of the contract being drafted are ironed out, then the negotiation ends. The beginning of the contract begins when all the parties commit to the contract (Niedzwiecki, Rzecki, & Centnarowicz, 2013). This is when they show commitment by signing a document if it is required or make payments if it is a business action.

If there is conflicting language in the buyer’s order and the seller’s confirmation, which language controls?

In the case of conflicting language in the buyer’s order and the seller’s confirmation, the buyer’s language rules because the right thing for the seller to have done is to reject the order by the buyer or offer the buyer alternatives prior to formalizing the contract.

How can Rachel determine when a contract has been performed fully?

Rachel can determine when a contract has been performed fully if all the terms in the contract have been met as agreed by both parties. The seller will have delivered the items and the buyer paid in full.

Part 3:

A private property system might work on one country and will never work in another which is an indication that the property ownership laws are different. The private ownership laws in the country where a private ownership system might work is definitely the type of country where the government is at the centre of these transactions. This would ensure that there is equitable distribution of land among the citizens. There would be fewer cases of people owning everything in the country while the poor people survive at the mercy of the handful rich people. Only a government that does not take the issue of capitalism too far would be in a position to regulate the land ownership rules in a country. In order to reverse the current situation where the rich own majority of the real estate projects, the government can offer compensation to the owners of the large tracts of land or charge high tax for the under-utilized tracts of land.

Offer a strategy you might suggest to get more private land into the hands of the poor in that country?

The best suggestion for the government to get more land to the poor people in a country would be to charge high fees for people who own the land and do not use as is the case in many countries. This would make the owners want to relinquish the pieces of land that they had yet to develop instead of spending more money protecting their land which is not generating profits for them (Howward-Hassmann, 2013). The second step would be, the government setting a maximum quantity on the size of ownership of land. This would mean that owning any land beyond the set maximum would attract a penalty or higher taxes. These two tactics would work in bringing more land into the hands of the poor people.

References

Find Law. (2004, June 15). UZAN v Real Estate Board of New York, Inc, Amicus Curiae. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from Find Law: caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1167905.html

Howward-Hassmann, R. E. (2013, May 2013). Reconsidering the Right to Own Property. Retrieved from Journal of Human Rights: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/147545.2013.784667

Niedzwiecki, M., Rzecki, K., & Centnarowicz, K. (2013). Comple Negotiaions in the conclusion and realisation of the contract. Retrieved from Internaional Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2013: www.sciencedirect.com/sciencecd/article/pii/S1877050913004638/pdf?md5=bee98cd8d719aab27aac05143f5d76d3&pid=1-s2.0-S1877050913004638-main.pdf&_valck=1