contract law :: essays research papers

In the case of Fletcher vs. Peck, the Yazoo land grants were on trial. One Georgia legislature had change millions of acres to four separate companies at a price of twain cents per acre. (Garraty 174). When the next legislature came into power, it was learned that many of those legislators that interchange the land had been corrupt. The companies had sold land to many small farmers who had no idea that the land should not have been sold in the first place. When the grant was bearn away(p) by the Georgian legislature, the farmers looked to the Supreme Court. (Corwin 151). The Court could have easily immovable not to hear the case. The whole land grant process had been corrupt, so the Georgian legislature had the right to take them away, but marshal believed there was something more to this case. He decided that he would hear the case. Marshall declare the rescinding act void because it violated peoples rights, and went against the separation of powers. For Marshall, this expl anation was simply not enough, so he turned to the Constitution to find something in compose to support his decision. He found his support in the contract clause. The enigma Marshall had was that the contract clause was there to protect persons waiting for a contract to be carried out, a land grant is over and through with(p) with once the land is handed over. (Corwin 153). By using a in truth loose interpretation, Marshall stated that when something is granted, the granter is not expected 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 assume that the grant is permanent. By using a very broad interpretation of the Constitution Marshall made this moral contract a legal one. Marshall apply his broad interpretation of the Constitution to strengthen the judicial branch.