EXCEPTIONS: overcome rule by finding a REAL promise - frame illusory promise as unilateral contract => enforceable ex. Gurfein (99): had window to cancel, but didn’t => enforceable ➢ COULD HAVE bound other party if exercise option - Implied promises ➢ UCC §2-306 (2): a contract to engage in exclusive dealing gives rise to an implied promise to use best efforts Ex. Wood v. Lucy (104): mkt designs for profits ➢ ct implied promise: to make reasonable efforts b/c w/o implied promise, the contract would be meaningless b/c structural agreement = incentive to use best effort is built in Ex. Grouse (110): promised at-will job, not allowed to start work ➢ implied promise in at-will jobs = “good faith opportunity to perform satisfactorily’ - Structural agreements Ex. Lacledes(106): supply propane for long period ➢ although not bound to purchase, practical binding exists ➢ pipes connected to Amoco supply source ➢ hostage theory of contracts: voluntarily
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. 192). One right that is available to Armstrong is referred to as the cure. The cure is the UCC’s way of promoting the completion of an original contract. It would allow Armstrong (the seller) the right or opportunity to repair or replace any goods that the buyer (GCI) has rejected as long as the time period for performance has not
Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship. There appears to be no evidence of fraudulent intent. As a result, Davey Jones will have to plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. Since he appears to want to cancel the contract, he can plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. If he claims fraudulent misrepresentation and is unsuccessful, then Davey Jones will likely have to pay Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. its full legal costs.
To successfully invoke this defense, the purchaser or occupier had to establish that it had no reason to know that the property was contaminated. Since the problem with brownfields is the existence or suspicion of contamination, the defense was largely unavailable to prospective developers or tenants of brownfield sites. To eliminate this obstacle to redevelopment of brownfields, the Brownfield Amendments created the BFPP defense for landowners or tenants who knowingly acquire or lease contaminated property after January 11, 2002. Only those parties that qualify for the BFPP defense are potentially subject to the windfall lien. To qualify for the BFPP, the owner or tenant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it has satisfied the following eight conditions: • All disposal of hazardous substances occurred before the purchaser acquired the facility.
Stein should sue. Alternately, if Stein wants to sue Gortino for fraud to cancel the sale or come up with a different settlement, she can do that. Discussion 2: How does this doctrine act as an exception to the elements and requirements of a contract? This doctrine can act as an exception because, according to Reinstatement Section 90, the promise doesn't have to be "so comprehensive in scope as to meet the requirements of an offer that would create a binding contract if accepted by the promisee" ("Hoffman v. Red," 1967). Also, the promissor has to expect that, upon the promise, it will induce action by the promisee.
She is unhappy about the unnecessary expense this statute imposes on her business and intends to file suit against the state of Confusion in an attempt to overturn the statute. In this paper I will discuss, which court will have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and whether the statute set-up by the state of Confusion is constitutional. I will list the stages in a civil suit and explore what provisions of the United States Constitution will be functional by the courts to determine the statute’s validity. Because the state of Confusion set- up this law, most likely they will not bulge in changing the law. Especially if one views that Tanya Trucker is the only complainant.
1. WoodCrafters made adjustment without complying to two clauses in the contract which are; • Woodcrafters shall be responsible for any cost overruns. • This contract is final unless the amendments is in writing and sign by both parties 2. Insisting in signed Sales contract with the speculator which is not re-negotiable. (Fix price ceiling) What is your opening move/ first strategy?
Because the law of the foreign country is the only law that can be enforceable contracts are only as good as the backing of the country's backing and are only binding in that instance. A country can stop all transactions from that business if they file lawsuit on that country (Melvin, 2011). What factors could work against CadMex's decision to grant sublicensing agreements? An organization that has too many sublicensing agreements and does not have sufficient sub paragraphs could find difficulties enforcing the sublicensing agreement. The organization could experience lawsuits if any of the contracted workers have any problems and could leave the organization liable for damages When the local customs and laws conflict with the customs and laws of an organization operating abroad which should prevail?
Big Bear’s lease contract states that if Big Bear’s financial condition suffers a material adverse change, they would be in default. This is objectively determinable. The third condition is that predefined requirements that pertain solely to the lessee have been established which will determine if default has occurred. In Big Bear’s case the “material adverse change” is not predefined. Therefore the third condition has not been met and the penalty payment would be included in the minimum lease payment.
1. Distinguish an offer from an invitation to offer An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on the specified terms without further negotiation, so that it requires only acceptance for a binding agreement to be formed.2 A technical definition of an invitation to treat would be restricted to statements indicting the maker’s willingness to receive offers.3 In the off-line 1 Roger Brownsword(ed), Smith and Thomas: A Casebook On Contract, (12th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2009) 26. 2 Jill Poole, Textbook on Contract Law, (11th edn, Oxford University