- The court must decide if the advertisement constituted an offer, and if the mistake is genuine and can be grounds to avoid the contract due to a unilateral mistake of fact. What is the court’s reasoning? (Might include reliance on precedent, statutory interpretation and legislative history & societal considerations) - The court first looked at whether an advertisement can be considered an offer. The court differentiates between advertisements that are in fact invitations for individuals to negotiate an offer, and advertisements that ask for a specific action without further communication and leave nothing for negotiation. The first category of advertisements is not considered offers, while the latter is not.
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.
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
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?
Explain. [Bannister v. Bemis Co. , 556 F.3d 882 (8th Cir.2009)] Case brief: Bemis Co, breached the covenant not to compete, the breach was material. Bannister could not accept employment with a Bemis competitor, but Bemis was to pay Bannister his salary. There was no term for a partial release. Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging.
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.
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.
What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Both parties agreed to the details of the distribution deal. “Mutual assent means that in order for a contract to be valid, the parties must reach an agreement using a combination of offer and acceptance. The offeror must make a valid offer to the offeree, who in turn must accept the offer in order for the parties to be bound by the agreement’s terms” (Melvin 2011). Additionally, there was intent indicated by the payment Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)?
Subsequently, the clerk filed a lawsuit against Burt for money damages. Classify each legal action. - The District Attorney's case was a criminal case; the cashier's lawsuit was a civil case ● Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Under the law, an employee has only a certain number of days from the alleged discriminatory act to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. How would these laws be classified?
In keeping a contract, it is said that the parties are executing a contract. However, should problems