contract law :: essays research papers

In the case of Fletcher vs. Peck, the Yazoo land concessions were on trial. One tabun legislature had interchange millions of acres to four separate companies at a price of two cents per acre. (Garraty 174). When the next legislature came into power, it was learned that many of those legislators that sold the land had been corrupt. The companies had sold land to many small farmers who had no theme that the land should non return been sold in the first place. When the surrender was taken away by the Georgian legislature, the farmers looked to the Supreme Court. (Corwin 151). The Court could have easily decided not to detect the case. The whole land impart process had been corrupt, so the Georgian legislature had the right to take them away, scarcely marshall believed there was something more to this case. He decided that he would hear the case. Marshall declared the rescinding act void because it violated peoples rights, and went against the separation of powers. For Marsha ll, this report was simply not enough, so he turned to the Constitution to get word something in writing to support his decision. He found his support in the contract clause. The problem Marshall had was that the contract clause was there to hold dear persons waiting for a contract to be carried out, a land grant is over and done with once the land is handed over. (Corwin 153). By employ a very loose reading material, Marshall stated that when something is granted, the granter is not evaluate to try and take back what he has been granted. In reality, the Constitution did not say this at all, but morally it made perfect sense. Marshall believed that there was a moral contract involved and that both parties should train that the grant is permanent. By using a very broad interpretation of the Constitution Marshall made this moral contract a sound one. Marshall used his broad interpretation of the Constitution to strengthen the juridic branch.