Kim v. Son Case Study
Reading and learning about the Kim v. Son case was very interesting and brought up different contract principals to examine. In this study we see that Jinsoo Kim invested money into two corporations owned by Stephen Son. The two businesses ended up failing and all of Kim’s investment went down the drain. Down the road, after the downfall of the corporation, Kim and Son met to eat and drink where Son made an intoxicated promise with his own blood to repay Kim for his lost money (Beatty and Samuelson, 2008, p.164). At first glance of this case my thoughts went right to intoxication and how this contract could be voidable since Son was intoxicated when the agreement was made. However, further reading suggested that courts vary rarely allow a contract to be voidable purely because of intoxication. Some may be too intoxicated for certain things, but as long as they were aware of the contract being ...view middle of the document...
The contract that was made by Son’s blood was also not a two-way agreement; Son simply made a promise, there were no negotiations between the two men (Kim v. Son). In order for a contract to have consideration, there has to be a two-way contract between the two parties, Son’s agreement was simply a promise, one that he had no right to fulfil.
After reading the case and facts within it, my decision would stand that Kim has no right to sue Son for the money he promised to repay. In summation, since Son did not promise the guarantee of the investment or loan at the original time of investment, the agreement was merely a promise and not a two-way negotiation, and the money was never Son’s to repay the contract between Kim and Son did not have valid consideration and therefore should not be an enforceable contract.
There are two sources of law we have studied so far when dealing with contracts; UCC and Common Law. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) covers commerce areas that created uniformity throughout the United States. This source of law was set in motion to provide uniformity when making transactions across state lines (Beatty and Samuelson, 2008, p.150). UCC is used in the sale of goods when looking at a contract side of things. On the other hand, common law is used when dealing with “non-moveable” goods; condos, houses, land, etc. Common law also applies to contracts that deal money, securities and certain legal rights (Beattty and Samuelson, 2008, p.150).
In this case of Kim v. Son, we are looking at an argument over money, which would fall under common law. Common law principals cover contracts dealing with sales of services and everything besides the sales of goods. The UCC strictly covers the sales of goods excluding monies. So therefore, since we are dealing with a dispute of money, Common Law principals would apply for this case.
Beatty, J., Samuelson, S. (2008). Introduction to business law. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Kim v. Son. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles.article27917.html