Bob is a recognized french horn player. Bob has played for several major symphonies. Last year Bob went through bankruptcy and in order to pay his rent for a couple of months took out loans from a small bank - Avarice Bank - and pledged his french horn as collateral. He was unable to make the first payment on the loan so the bank was getting ready to take the french horn for non-payment. Bob approached the director of the Gilroy Philarmonic International Symphony - Joe - for help - asking him to guarantee payment so he does not lose his french horn. Joe agreed to guarantee the payment - partially because Bob is scheduled as the featured performer at the Classic Polka Festival in Gilroy which Joe manages. Joe called Avarice Bank and said if Bob could not pay, he would, and Avarice accepted his guaranty by phone. Bob played for the Polka Festival (it was very successful), but immediately after, left town and his whereabouts are unknown. Avarice has contacted Joe and indicated they have not collected from Bob and they expect Joe to pay the debt. Joe told Avarice they did not have anything in writing from him (though there are witnesses who heard Joe guarantee payment) and he believes he will not be liable for Bob's debt. Avarice has indicated it will file suit for payment against Joe. I
nstructions: Answer the following questions about this case:
Issue: What is the legal issue/dispute? (Be specific. Don’t just say Contract Law)
Decision: Who should prevail?
Support: Provide support for your decision. Describe what the law says about situations like this, and how it applies to this case.

In this case, we analysed three problems, which are The issue, The decision and The support.

The issue of the dispute was does guarantee on phone for payment debt) valid and enforceable in the court of law.

The decision was centered on whether a contract is needed to be in writing and if it should bear the signatures of both parties in order for it to be enforceable.

The support centered on the assurance of the repayment of debt contract in which authorities the creditor to get back the money from the guarantor, if the debtor fails on payment.

Explanation:

Solution

The Issue : Does guarantee on phone for a debt payment is valid and enforceable in a court of law.

Decision : The guarantee is a contract and needs to be in writing and should bear the signatures of the parties in order to be enforceable. In this case, the guarantee for the debt repayment by Bob was given by Joe on phone, which does not fulfill the requirement of the contract to be enforceable.Hence the bank would not succeed in claiming payments from Joe.

Support : Guarantee for repayment of debt is a contract that authorities the creditor to recover the money from the guarantor if the debtor defaults on payment. However, the guarantee contract should be in writing ( in legal systems of most of the countries) and should be signed by the guarantor. In absence of a written contract and signature of the guarantor, the contract can't be enforced in a court of law, which is in this case. The bank should have insisted only on the written and signed consent of guarantee from Joe. As it did not, it can't hold him liable for the breach of guarantee contract.

the answer is either "loser" or "dumb*ss"

gods, i'm only joking, don't ban me.*

was my answer wrong?