In the case of Pearsall and Alexander where the two had a friendly relationship for quite sometime, their activities seem to be quite similar as they work together and after work they have some leisure time. Pearsall and Alexander involved in a ticket lottery when Pearsall first brought a ticket and assed Alexander to contribute on the ticket expenses but he denied by saying he did not have the money to do so. The answer Alexander gave proved that their deal was not a contract or bill since it was not negotiable and can be cancelled at will.
The relationship that existed between the two individuals did not seem to have any legal disciplines; an example of this is the way they dealt with the tickets they bought. When they won they used to the money together by buying more drinks, though it was almost definite that the money they got would be spent together there were no clear legal cut lines as to how this would be done. In that light Pearsall does not have any legal rights to demand the half of the money that Alexander won. Though Alexander can decide to give a share to Pearsall, the amount he can give does not have to be constant.
The reason behind this statement is that when Alexander bought the ticket and won he was not commanded by the law to give any share to Pearsall since there deal was not a contract that it must be honored. There statement were not written nor were made before any witness hence they can not be enforced by law. 2. Empro and ball signed a letter of intent containing the terms and conditions which would be followed by both of during their transactions. Ball was to sell his asset to Empro who would pay a total of $2. 4 million but $650,000 would be paid at closing and the rest using the 10 year promissory note.
The letter of intent that was signed was clear that it would be honored if the amount specified by the asset owner who in this case is Ball was paid in full by Empro. Since Empro was unable to settle the payment agreed, the intent could not legally protect him since he did not honor it. As per the agreement the intent must be followed to the dot and only the individual who does not bid to it should be punishable by law. In that light Empro had no reason to sue Ball for negotiating with someone else since he did not follow the intent commands by not settling the 10year promissory note as first agreed.
In conclusion Empro should not sue Ball or even recommend a refund. 3. Crookham and Vessels were the only contractors recognized an hired by the Little Rock Port Authority and therefore the authority company had no business dealing with Moyer who they had hired. The contraction terms and conditions that are recognized by law only honors the initial parties who in this case are Crookham and Vessels and also the Little Rock Port Authority, the reason behind this is that the agreement that was first made only bided the contraction to the first contractors.