2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts that weigh in favor of Chou is that BTT originally offered the exclusive contract for $25000 to be the only ones that could negotiate over 90 days. An agreement was made and then the management of BTT sent an email with the terms of the agreement, putting the oral agreement into writing. Chou offered to draft the contract, but BTT send an email regardless.
1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? This case is very interesting, especially that a lawyer was not present at all times while it is a serious deal between both parties. The email sent by the BTT manager was sent as a form of contract although it did not state that in the email and in the legal terms nothing was signed or agreed upon. The verbal agreement and the email might be considered a contract in the court of law.
Facts against: In the original negotiation agreement it was stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing. Another possible fact that could weigh against Chou is that although the agreement was drafted it was not sent because if the misinterpretation that the email was in fact the contract. Question 3: Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Communication via email does have some impact to the question of contract but it is not enough to rule out a contract completely. The use of email may be binding if it does not state that the intent is to only negotiate terms.
Also, the conclusion also did not review all the major points of the paper for the reader. The title page met most of the appropriate UOP guidelines. However, the running head had a formatting error and if you use a running head in the title page, it must be used on all pages of the paper. Citations were not used in the text. Remember, all references listed in the reference page must also be cited in the text.
The company is required to file the auditor's attestation report as part of the annual report”. 2. Ernst & Ernst argued that the mail rule was not relevant to its audits of First Securities since that rule only involved personal transactions on Nay and the escrow investors. Do you agree? Why or why not?
According to my research widget could sue john if he did sign the paper and accepting the terms but widget cant sue the competitor because the competitor has nothing to do with her business. 3. Is John in a fiduciary relationship with International Widgets? Why or why not? Is he an agent of International Widgets?
Defendants' argument is not persuasive. In Towler [v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir.1996)], the plaintiff relied on the theoretical possibility that agents to whom she had sent her screenplay "could have sent the work to" the alleged infringer. Id. There was no evidence that the agents had sent the work to the defendant, only the plaintiff's suggestion that such a transmittal was hypothetically possible. This, the Fourth Circuit concluded, was not adequate proof of access.
Under the parol evidence rule, if a court finds that the parties intended their written contract to be a complete and final statement of their agreement, then it will not allow either party to present parol evidence (testimony or other evidence of communications between the parties that are not contained in the contract itself). 15-4a Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule Because of the rigidity of the parol evidence rule, the courts have created the following exceptions: 1. Contracts subsequently modified. Evidence of any subsequent modification (oral or written) of a written contract can be introduced
Week 1: Assignment 9.4 This is a very straightforward case due to the definition provided by Montana law for written contracts. The information provided by this question state that Dr. Vranich contracted Mr. Winkel for salary, insurance and other benefits, the subsequent modification to this contract was entirely an oral. Since the details of the contract are not known presently, it was assumed by Dr. Vranich that the oral agreement was not executed or fully performed by both sides of the contract. Therefore Mr. Winkel would not receive the profit-sharing bonus since the original written agreement did not include such a provision. The other matter of ethical conduct by Dr. Vranich is a more difficult matter to contend with.
The interoperability was never put into place for reasons that can only be speculated on. There are assumptions that Grant Holcomb the architect of the proposed system had a conflict of interest that may have profited him. There are also allegations that Greg Meffert, Nagin's chief technology officer, stated that the technology wouldn't work. Many controversial issues of being unethical by several parties involved in this system caused a delay that unfortunately wasn’t in play for Katrina. Interoperability is dangerous to the concept of Federalism because although New Orleans was granted money to fund the system by the national government, at the state level, it was never implemented.