Factors for consideration a. law’s non-logical implications in interpretation what parties would’ve agreed to (ex. Haines: duration and scope of contract) - policy: at-will doctrine in employment: policy - would’ve agreed to terms had they anticipated situation - had in mind, but didn’t express it b. context - what is the objective of the contract? Is it ambiguous? Ex. Spaulding v. Morse (369): stop yearly payment to trust during time in armed services - enforce according to terms if unambiguous, consider context if terms are ambiguous - not only context at time of contract formation, but also what happened AFTER ⇨ changed circumstances - why look at context?
Article 2 of the UCC allows a contract to be enforced based on a picture that consists of past commercial conduct, correspondence or verbal exchange between parties and industry standards and norms. Once in court, the verbal agreement might play its role but the possible issue of fraud could be present stating that Chou was misled. 5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain.
What constitutes sufficient consideration, however, has been the subject of continuing legal debate. Contracts and courts generally use the term valuable consideration to signify consideration sufficient to sustain an enforceable agreement. In general, consideration consists of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to refrain from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. Thus, a person who seeks to enforce a promise must have paid or obligated herself to pay money, delivered goods, expended time and labour, or forgone some other profitable activity or legal right. For example, in a contract for the sale of goods the money paid is the valuable consideration
Commercial Law Coursework ‘If the underlying policy of Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 is to extend a strong measure of protection to private purchasers acting in good faith, then the decision in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 can be seen as an example of this policy being defeated by questionable aspects of the common law.’ Discuss. Transfer of title and property to goods is considered to be in most cases a relatively straightforward commercial transaction between two parties. There are certain situations where a non-owner having bought goods from the seller disposes them to a third party, which acts in goods faith. The question, which emanates from such cases, is whether the bona fide purchaser has received a valid title to the goods. According to the Latin maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” set out in S21(1) of the Sale of goods Act 1979 the seller cannot pass to a buyer a better title to the goods than he himself possesses.
Also, the promissor has to expect that, upon the promise, it will induce action by the promisee. The promissor cannot say it wasn't part of the contract. Why does this doctrine exist? The doctrine exists to protect a person who was promised something and there is no essential elements of a contract that exists. Did the court reach the proper decision in the case you discussed?
If a situation should occur then the company could be covered by t the Conflict of laws which has three branches , Jurisdiction whether the forum court has the power to resolve the dispute at hand, Choice of law the law which is being applied to resolve the dispute, and Foreign judgments the ability to recognize and enforce a judgment from an external forum within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating forum. When a company enters into a contract with another company overseas the contract should be clear of which area their conflicts will be solved. Most often it is more cost effective to leave these conflicts to arbitration, more so if the company is not a part of any international trade groups. Foreign judgments can also be a great tool if they are on a neutral ground. Either foreign judgments or arbitration must have a binding clause in the contract to
Pat could argue that signing the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan as an implied contract protecting his employment with NewCorp. Critical information in this case needs to be further reviewed to assess the risks and rights of both parties in this scenario. For instance, was there any form of documented performance discussion regarding Pat’s performance? If so, was Pat given the opportunity to correct his performance issue? Or, in the initial employment arrangement, was there promise of employment for any period of time?
Armstrong is obligated to transfer and deliver conforming goods to GCI. Conforming goods requires that the goods must conform exactly to the agreed upon description provided by the buyer to the seller. This action is referred to as tender of delivery and the UCC obligates the seller to have or tender the specific goods requested. By substituting the third part of the press Armstrong has not yet breached the contract but has not provided perfect tender. Armstrong’s failures to meet their obligation gives GCI three options: they may reject the entire shipment of goods, accept the shipment of goods as is, or accept any number of commercial units and reject the rest of the goods, (Melvin 2011, pg.
Jones purchase the stock of Smithon outright leaving Smithon intact? The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock.
If there is a problem with the indorsements, or if the check has been altered, the payor bank can bring a claim against the depositary bank for breach of the warranty. This fits right in with the UCC's general scheme which seeks to place the risk of loss on the party in the best position to prevent the loss. Depositary banks should exercise caution when accepting a deposit