Willigham proposed to obtain an investment property for the Tschiras at a \"tair

Question

Willigham proposed to obtain an investment property for the Tschiras at a "tair market price. lease it back from them, and pay the Tschiras a guaranteed return through a management contract. Using a shell corporation, The Wellingham Group bought a commercial property in Nashville for $774,000 on December 14, and the very same day sold the building to the Tschiras for $1,985,000. The title insurance policy purchased for the Tschiras property by Willingham was for just $774,000. Willingham believes that the deal was legitimate in that they "guaranteed" a return on the investment. The Tschiras disagree. In a lawsuit against Willingham, what theory will Tschiras v. Wilingham, 133 F.3d 1077 (6th Cir)

Explanation / Answer

Tschiras v. Willingham case was related to the sale of property where Tschiras had agreed to purchase from Corim a portion of the property in Nashville at a quoted price of $1,985,000 and both the concerned parties contract was substantiated as a proof by a letter from Willingham to Tschiras.

The letter basically was written to describe the nature of the contract and the concerned party’s co-relationships with each other. However several years later Tschiras realized that Corim and Willingham had acquired the Nashville property for $774,000 through a shell company and on the same day they had sold it to them and thus made an instantaneous revenue of $ I,211,000.

As a result Tschiras took a legal action against Corim and Willingham and filed a petition with a charge of breach of fiduciary duty and deliberate misrepresentation. The district court applied the German rules and regulation and established that a fiduciary relationship between the concerned parties and accordingly instructed the adjudicators to return the judgment in favor of the Tschiras.

On filing a review petition with the Sixth Circuit Corim and Willingham initially argued that the district court had inappropriately applied German law to the dispute because they believed Willingham's letter was not an obligatory condition for a lawful contract thus invoking the German law which they insisted upon because Willingham had no intent to agreement and the requisite get-together of the minds was also consequently missing.

However the Sixth Circuit discarded Willingham's argument and based on Willingham's statement court finally accomplished that the letter in fact actually confirmed his intent and the letter was considered to be legally binding to the contract and accordingly German law was applied to the case and verdict was given in favor of Tschiras.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.