BTT inquired about distributing Strat and paid Chou $25,000 in exchange for exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. This fact actually can play a big role against Chou. 3. Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 and 2 (above)? Electronic communication is as effective as paper communication.
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.
Conclusion: If the lawsuit can be collected on an annuity basis in a structured settlement, then John’s fee could potentially be non-taxable. This is an option that should certainly be explored. The $25,000 in expenses should still be deductible as business expenses. Issue d) Do I get better tax benefits for paying the lease on office space or for buying the building? What are the differences?
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.
If the sales outlook for the coming three years was only 20,000,000 and B.E. continued producing at the rate of 30,000,000 units, a total of 10,000,000 units would be dumped into ending inventory at the end of each year once again reducing costs of goods sold and falsely increasing income. By the end of year 2013, B.E. Company would have 35,000,000 units sitting in ending inventory taking up space and costing money to store. Once again if the president’s bonus is based off of net income, this situation is the most favorable for a high paying bonus and encourages stockpiling inventory to inflate net income.
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.
According to both parties, time limits have been extended in the past without incident. What is not clear is whether or not this particular incident has occurred in the past. The chief steward submitted a handwritten note requesting an extension when the terms of the contract clearly state that the request must be submitted via certified mail, postmarked within 10 days of the third response. 2. Should the arbitrator be influenced by any evidence over the reasons for the termination of those two employees?
This is partly a practical decision given that we have not provided rates beyond 20 year term in the book. We use the quoted value for $250,000 policies pro-rated to the size of policy we need, and this is incorrect — policy premiums per dollar decline as the size of the policy rises, since some costs are fixed. However, it is the best we have, and the difference will not be
Further, the expenditure of $25 million dollars will get an additional gross profit of only $2 million. How with the additional expenditure be recouped? That apart I would like to know how the advertising will position the Graves Enterprises brand. The theme of advertising, the print layout, and the effect that the advertising will have the commercial segment is important. Further I would like to know the co-operative advertising that she intends doing.
In February 2011, the case is settled, and Joe refunds $2,500 to the customer. When Joe prepares his 2010 tax return in April 2011, he will include only $1,500 of net revenues from that customer. Your Answer: False The claim of right doctrine requires the recipient of disputed funds to recognize the income. Joe will include the full $4,000 in his 2010 taxable income because he had full control over the funds. He will be allowed to take a deduction on his 2011 tax return for the $2,500 repaid the customer.