Hilgendorf Vs Hague Case Brief
In Hilgendorf v. Hague the Supreme Court of Iowa determined that Hague had the power, but not the right, to terminate the agency relationship with Hilendorf (“Hilendorf,” n.d.).
An agency relationship can be terminated by an act of both parties, an unusual change of circumstances, impossibility of performance, and operation of law (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 393). In the case of Hilgendorf v. Hague, the contract was not terminated by an act of both parties, because Hilgendorf (agent) did not acquiesce to Hague’s (principal) attempt to terminate the relationship, the stated time of the contract had not passed, and due to Hague’s unwillingness to accept Hilgendorf’s buyer, the terms of the contract were not achieved.
In order to terminate a contract because of impossibility to perform, there must be some change that makes it impossible for either the agent or the principal to perform the terms of the contract. Circumstance …show more content…
394). Although, the Haguess had legal issues prior to entering into an agency with Mr. Hilgendorf, they were not bankrupt, therefore, the contract was not terminated by operation of law.
Lastly, an unusual change of circumstances that causes an agent to believe the original instructions of the principal are invalid terminates an agency. Because the agency between Hague and Hilgendorf was not terminate due any of the above reasons, In Hilendorf v. Hague the Supreme Court of Iowa determined that Hague did not have the legal right to terminate the agency relationship with Hilgendorf, therefore, Hague owed Hilgendorf damages for the wrongful termination (“Hilendorf,” n.d.).
I believe the Haguess acted unethically. The Haguess acted unethically because they did not allow Mr. Hilgendorf the full year to find a ready and willing
An agency relationship can be terminated by an act of both parties, an unusual change of circumstances, impossibility of performance, and operation of law (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 393). In the case of Hilgendorf v. Hague, the contract was not terminated by an act of both parties, because Hilgendorf (agent) did not acquiesce to Hague’s (principal) attempt to terminate the relationship, the stated time of the contract had not passed, and due to Hague’s unwillingness to accept Hilgendorf’s buyer, the terms of the contract were not achieved.
In order to terminate a contract because of impossibility to perform, there must be some change that makes it impossible for either the agent or the principal to perform the terms of the contract. Circumstance …show more content…
394). Although, the Haguess had legal issues prior to entering into an agency with Mr. Hilgendorf, they were not bankrupt, therefore, the contract was not terminated by operation of law.
Lastly, an unusual change of circumstances that causes an agent to believe the original instructions of the principal are invalid terminates an agency. Because the agency between Hague and Hilgendorf was not terminate due any of the above reasons, In Hilendorf v. Hague the Supreme Court of Iowa determined that Hague did not have the legal right to terminate the agency relationship with Hilgendorf, therefore, Hague owed Hilgendorf damages for the wrongful termination (“Hilendorf,” n.d.).
I believe the Haguess acted unethically. The Haguess acted unethically because they did not allow Mr. Hilgendorf the full year to find a ready and willing