Sports Case study

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Stine Versus Stewart Case
Statement of the CaseThe legal issue is regarding Stine, who offered a loan of $100,100 to his son-in-law; Stewart and the daughter, Nancy, to enable them to buy a house (Mann and Roberts 278). Both parties signed a promissory note which stated that the money would be paid back once the owner requests it. In 1985, the defendant paid half the amount and failed to pay the balance. Seven years later, the couple filed for divorce and intended to sell the house. There was an agreement that required Stewart to pay for any maintenance costs before he found a buyer for the home. If Stewart managed to sell the home, he would first try to settle his debt with Stine, and for the remaining balance, both Nancy and Stewart would be on a 50-50% basis (Mann and Roberts 278). Stewart sold the home for approximately $6000 but did not pay anything to Stine.
The Decision and Justification
In 1997, Stine sued Steward for failing to honor their agreement, and the court ruled that Stine was a third party and a beneficiary of the divorce. Therefore, the judge states that she should be paid a total of $27,410 for damages suffered and the interest accumulated from the debt (Mann and Roberts 279) However, Stewart files a case against this ruling, and the course passes that Stine was only an incidental beneficiary of the divorce and not a third party. The court stated that, as provided in the Texas law, it is only possible for the third party to be compensated if the two main parties agreed to benefit the third party (Mann and Roberts 279) In this case, the Stewards did not acquire a divorce to help Stine in any way.

Based on this fact, the court passed that Stine lacks any grounds to sue Steward and finalized that Stine will take nothing.

Work Cited
Mann, Richard A., and Barry S. Roberts. Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment. 11th ed., Cengage Learning, 2012.