bla week 4 written assignment, business and finance homework help

Dear writer please make shore you answer these three questions very well do not write anything that is not related to this assignment here are the instructions:

Read Cases 13.4 and 13.5

• What facts/ideas justify the opinion of the courts in each case?

• What alternatives could you suggest to eliminate the issues in these cases?

• How do these cases compare and contrast?

Support your answer with legal concepts from this week’s learning.

Be sure to provide in text citation and source information in APA

format including a working URL.

Here are the 2 cases 13.4 and 13.5:

13.4 Duress Judith and Donald Eckstein were married and had two

daughters. Years later, Judith left the marital abode in the parties’

jointly owned Volkswagen van with only the clothes on her back. She

did not take the children, who were 6 and 8 years old at the time. She

had no funds, and the husband promptly closed the couple’s bank

account. The wife was unemployed. Shortly after she left, the husband

discovered her whereabouts and the location of the van and seized and

secreted the van. The husband refused the wife’s request to visit or

communicate with her children and refused to give her clothing. He

told her that she could see the children and take her clothes only if

she signed a separation agreement prepared by his lawyer. The wife

contacted Legal Aid but was advised that she did not qualify for

assistance. The wife was directed to go to her husband’s lawyer’s

office. A copy of a separation agreement was given to her to read. The

separation agreement provided that the wife (1) give custody of the

children to her husband, (2) deed her interest in their jointly owned

house to the husband, (3) assign her interest in a jointly owned new

Chevrolet van to her husband, and (4) waive alimony, support,

maintenance, court costs, attorneys’ fees, and any right to

inheritance in her husband’s estate. By the agreement, she was to

receive $1,100 cash, her clothes, the Volkswagen van, and any

furniture she desired. The wife testified that her husband told her

over an interoffice phone in the lawyer’s office that if she did not

sign the separation agreement, he would get her for desertion, that

she would never see her children again, and that she would get

nothing—neither her clothes nor the van—unless she signed the


13.5 Ethics Case Wells Fargo Credit Corporation (Wells Fargo) obtained

a judgment of foreclosure on a house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Clevenger.

The total indebtedness stated in the judgment was $207,141. The

foreclosure sale was scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on a specified day at

the west front door of the Hillsborough County Courthouse. Wells Fargo

was represented by a paralegal, who had attended more than 1,000

similar sales. Wells Fargo’s handwritten instruction sheet informed

the paralegal to make one bid at $115,000, the tax-appraised value of

the property. Because the first 1 in the number was close to the

dollar sign, the paralegal misread the bid instruction as $15,000 and

opened the bidding at that amount. Harley Martin, who was attending

his first judicial sale, bid $20,000. The county clerk gave ample time

for another bid and then announced, “$20,000 going once, $20,000 going

twice, sold to Harley.” The paralegal screamed, “Stop, I’m sorry. I

made a mistake!” The certificate of sale was issued to Martin. Wells

Fargo filed suit to set aside the judicial sale based on its

unilateral mistake. Does Wells Fargo’s unilateral mistake constitute

grounds for setting aside the judicial sale? Did any party act

unethically in this case? Wells Fargo Credit Corporation v. Martin,

650 So.2d 531, 1992 Fla. App. Lexis 9927 (Court of Appeal of Florida)

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.