The verbal agreement and the email might be considered a contract in the court of law. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The fact that both parties reached a verbal agreement prior might help Chou. BTT inquired about distributing Strat and paid Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period.
Terminal assigned its rights to Wells Fargo (plaintiff). Terminal never paid a portion of the $250,000. Brooks refused to make monthly payments and Wells Fargo sued. Parties moved for summary judgement. Court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo, brooks appealed ISSUE: Even though a company is acting in good faith should they be held liable for contract duties?
In this case there was not a counter offer made. The offerer asked for the payment to be made it two checks, instead of one to him. The price of the deal has not changed. It is still $25,000. If there was a contract signed between these two, then Bob could enforce that the original terms of the contract be kept.
Then an e-mail was received that stated all of the agree upon terms. Even if this was to be a contract Chou just held onto instead of signing and returning as he should, to show he received and still agreed upon the terms. Therefore no legally binding contract exists from either party. 2.. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The facts weigh in favor of Chou because BTT paid $25,000 to Chou for the 90 days rights showing seriousness to pursuing the distribution rights to Strat.
AC 553 Week 7 47. On April 18, 2011, Jane Juniper purchased 30 shares of Bryan Corp. stock for $210, and on September 29, 2011, she purchased 90 additional shares for $900. On November 28, 2011, she sold 48 shares, which could not be specifically identified, for $576 and on December 8, 2011, she sold another 25 shares for $188. What is her recognized gain or loss? 210/30= $7; 900/90= $10.
Question 5. (TCOs 3, 4, 5, & 7) During the past two years, through extensive advertising and improved customer relations, Beech Corporation estimated that it had developed customer goodwill worth $100,000. For the current year, determine the amount of goodwill Beech Corporation may amortize. Question 6. (TCOs 3, 4, 5, & 7) Damien, not a dealer in real estate, sold real estate with a basis of $250,000 for $500,000 cash, a note for $250,000, and the buyer assumed Damien’s mortgage on the property of $125,000.
2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts in favor of Chou The $25,000 payment The e-mail Facts against Chou No contract New management 90-day period had passed False assumption that the e-mail was a contract 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Yes it does, because e-mail is a form of writing but it did not say contract.
The main competitors before the final bid stage were IAS, Robotic Automation, and UA Corporation. In the final bid stage, a committee had narrowed the field down to Omni and UA and that UA had just edged out Omni. Cost did not play a large factor in the decision since both companies came in at about the same price. Problem Client Gentech ultimately purchased the robotic test cell from a competitor instead of from Omni Automated Systems, which also means a loss of future robotic work cell sales with them. Bob Waters, the sales representative that worked and lost the sale, has a low 20% success rate in selling the product.
PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR VIKING INVESTMENTS Role: SANDY WOOD, WoodCrafters, Inc. What issue is the most important to you? (List in order of importance) 1. To persuade Pat Olafson, the owner of Viking Investments, to pay entire outstanding invoice in cash within 15 days. Alternatively, aim for invoice payment of $700,000 in 15 days, the rest in 30 days 2. To persuade Pat not to recall the $200,000 loan 3.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? This fact weighs in favor of Chou, because he in fact believed that BTT was in favor of the distribution contract. BTT also provided misleading information by making a payment of 25,000 for the exclusive negotiation rights for the board game STRAT. However, both parties only made an oral agreement, and not a written contract to show this fact. Since the contact was not drafted within the 90-day timeframe, new management could not make obligation to distribute the product, and had the right to decline Chou of his prior agreement through oral agreement.