Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis Case Study

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

The case of Lambert v. Barron is based on the definition of what constitutes a contract and its terms. Based on the case record, a contract is made between two parties when they both acknowledge obligations to each other (Louisiana Laws Civil Code). Lambert urged that a contract exist because there was an oral agreement to perform services on his part. However, Barron had a different view because he did not request a lengthy service period and, accordingly, continued cooperation.

The essential facts supporting Lambert’s position were the execution of the transfer of documents that required his review. Both parties could agree because they were on friendly terms and, therefore, did not consider a written power of attorney necessary (Court of Appeal of Louisiana). Furthermore, Lambert did come to Farmerville to review the documents. Lambert talked about his obligations, the timing of the services, and their cost, which may confirm the existence of a contract since there was a customer (Barron’s with a request to look at the documents) and a contractor (Lambert with his terms clearly defined).

The essential facts supporting Barron’s position were the absence of his intent or expressed consent to perform the services. Barron also informed Lambert that he did not want to be on the list of individuals who paid him $3,100 per month for his services. Moreover, Barron did not explicitly communicate the continued cooperation and did not contact the prosecutor to discuss work goals (Court of Appeal of Louisiana). The fact of payment was for one day’s work and a review of documentation.

The case outcome is that Lambert’s claim was unsuccessful, and I agree with that decision. First, there was no explicit agreement with the contract terms from Barron. Second, Lambert received payment for the consultation he completed on five documents and did not subsequently perform any outside services (Court of Appeal of Louisiana). Third, Lambert’s review of the papers was the only action without a ruling or any appointment of arbitration.

Work Cited

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. No. 42,868-CA. Web.

Louisiana Laws Civil Code. Art. 1906. Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2023, October 13). Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lambert-vs-barron-case-analysis/

Work Cited

"Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis." IvyPanda, 13 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/lambert-vs-barron-case-analysis/.

References

IvyPanda. (2023) 'Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis'. 13 October.

References

IvyPanda. 2023. "Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis." October 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lambert-vs-barron-case-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda. "Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis." October 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lambert-vs-barron-case-analysis/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Lambert vs. Barron: Case Analysis." October 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lambert-vs-barron-case-analysis/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1