Bob Areebob is a recognized french horn player. Bob has played as a freelance mu
ID: 345691 • Letter: B
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 Dissent: the strongest arguments the losing party can/will make
Explanation / Answer
If we look at both the sides of the case there are various facts that can be highlighted from both the perspectives. If we look from the perspective of Joe Dogooder, director of the Gilroy Philarmonic International Symphony we will observe that he believed Bob Areebob and verbally promised Avarice bank that he will be paying the debt and this is actually fine and fair. Now, if we look at the perspective of Avarice bank we will see that the mistake they made was to consider the verbal promise made by Joe Dogooder because verbal promise has no validity or weightage in a lawsuit. So therefore it is very clear that Joe Dogooder should prevail because he is not liable to pay. The legal issue can be framed against Bob Areebob because he is the debtor and the terms and conditions are defined regarding the debt but there is no legal issue possible against Joe Dogooder because there is no formal document to support the promise made by him, therefore the decision is very clear that Joe Dogooder is getting a clean chit and there will search expeditions against Bob Areebob. The losing party that is Avarice bank in his defense may provide the call recording of Bob Areebob and may also add that they would not have allowed Bob Areebob if Joe Dogooder had not made the promise but even these will not pose a strong defense.