Big Time Toymaker At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? I do not think the two parties involved ever had a contract. In the scenario, the parties reached an agreement only three days before the end of a 90-day deadline set in the original negotiation contract. In the original negotiation contract, it states there would be no distribution contract unless it was in writing. When the BTT manager sent the e-mail to Chou, he mentioned the terms of a distribution agreement, but it does not make the e-mail a contract, as neither party signed it.
Under the statue of frauds BTT would not be held liable for not distributing Strat and simple walk away from the deal. 5. No BTT cannot avoid the contract under the doctrine of mistake, because BTT had proposed on meeting its commitments by giving a verbal agreement, before all the changes occurred in their facility. They had sent Chou a fax demanding a plan of the dispersal contract after they had sent him an e-mail that Chou supposed to have switched the previous perception asking him to sketch up a contract. "A unilateral mistake is when only one party had an erroneous
2. What could Little do, if anything, to cure any alleged flaw in the consideration? 3. How does the fact that Giant has honored the contract for two years affect your argument? Contracts 616 Assignment #4 King 6595 MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO: Chief Operating Officer, Giant Candy Company FROM:
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? No, because, the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake' and the 'common mistake' where not represented.
4. To cancel a contract on the basis of a mistake, the mistake must be about a material fact. 5. If a price quotation contains a mistake in the adding of a number of figures, the contract may not be enforceable. 6.
The statute of frauds would play a role, because possibly the emails sent by the BTT company could possibly be evidence enough of a “verbal” contract to put them in breach of contract with the Chou company. However, according to the doctrine of mistake BTT could possibly avoid the contract due to misunderstanding in the process of a management
What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? Intent to authenticate is used to determine whether the e-mail would satisfies the status of fraud this would where what state they were in; states courts are still determining what extent e-mail can be used to satisfy the statute of frauds. 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain.
An employee also can not be fired “at will” for taking family and medical leave, serving in the military, voting, or jury duty. To protect the right to fire at will, employers ask new employees to sign a written statement agreeing that they are employed at will. Usually the “at will” language appears in the application, the contract or offer letter, or an acknowledgment form from the employee
However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them. This creates a paradox. In order to explain this seemingly inescapable contradiction, Nagel uses the concept of two viewpoints that correlate to both sides of the argument. Depending on which viewpoint you take, either moral luck or the Control Principle can hold true for a certain situation. In this paper, I will argue that, though Nagel's theory makes sense, there are still holes in such an argument.
The third theory is that the agency did not comply with the APA requirements of notice, publication, and public comment or input. This theory requires me to prove that the agency that is making the proposal did not follow the correct steps before passing the regulation. The fourth legal theory I could use, is that the proposal is unconstitutional. In this theory I would have to prove that the proposal violates my constitutional right. The final theory that I could use is ultra vires, which simply means beyond its power.