(2) What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? The exclusive negotiation rights payment of $25,000 as well as the final draft sent in by Chou showing his intent to distribute may contribute to establishing that the contract existed. One of the objectives that may work against Chou is the fact that the draft sent in by BTT did not entail the word contract but instead utilized agreement verbiage. (3) Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Questions 1 & 2 above? Email is considered a written form of communication, since the negotiation suggestions are written.
BTT’s manager posted an e-mail to Chou describing the conditions of a distribution contract; however, this does not make the email an agreement until the parties both sign it. This is only considered a verbal deal because it is not a legally binding draft containing signatures of both parties involved. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Chou would believe that BTT was interested in arriving at an agreement on a distribution offer because BTT paid Chou $25,000 for the unique negotiation legal rights to his board game (Melvin, 2011). This is a fact that would weigh in support of Chou; however, both parties only made a verbal offer and not a written agreement to demonstrate this fact.
In this situation, we would look at unilateral mistake which typically involves a material fact. “In general, a unilateral mistake does not afford the mistake party any right to relief from the contact” which “in other words, the contract is enforceable (Miller & Hollowell, 2011). There are two exceptions to where the contract may not be enforceable, “(1) if the other party to the contract knows or should have known that a mistake was made or (2) if the error was due to a substantial mathematical mistake in addition, subtraction, division, or multiplication and was made inadvertently and without gross negligence (intentional failure to perform a duty reckless disregard of the consequences)” (Miller & Hollowell, 2011). References Miller, W. L., & Hollowell, W. E. (2011). Business Law Text & Exercises Sixth Edition.
He authorized the charging of his credit card, The TV Corporation International charged the credit card. Subsequently, The TV Corporation International tried to avoid handing over the domain name to Lim using several pretexts like there was an e-mail error, the minimum bid amount had not been bid for and other such reasons. Issues of Law being raised are accepting to bid on the online auction and paying through the credit card the sum requested by the seller, is there an enforceable contract? Can the seller be sued for breach of contract? Procedural history is the trial court dismissed the case because the court held that since the domain offered and the one accepted were "different' there was no contract formed.
Northwest Distribution Corporation had three significant events between their December 31, 2011 fiscal year-end, and March 15, 2012, the date that their financial statements were issued. It is important to analyze each event and use your best judgment to determine if it is necessary to disclose this information as a subsequent event disclosure note, as required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, ASC 855: Subsequent Events, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 165, 2009. Event 1: On January 22, 2012, the company negotiated a major merger with Blandon Industries. The merger will be completed by the middle of 2012.
The statute of frauds is the law overseeing which agreements must be in writing in order to be enforceable. With that said the statute of frauds my work in favor of Chou because there was an agreement sent up within the e-mail. The issue with the e-mail is that there is now signature from any of the parties so a court may reject this because of the lack of signatures from the parties. It is possible that the court system may allow BTT to claim that the agreement is a mistake because there was a management change and the new manager may have felt that the agreement was not in the best interest of the company. I think the best defense for BTT would be that there is no contract because either parties did not sign anything, just that they were in talks of a possible contract.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
Knowing the legal requirements for making binding contracts is important. Contracts provide the means for individuals and businesses to sell or transfer property, services, and other rights. Without enforceable contracts, the business world would collapse. A contract is defined as an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. (Black's Law Dictionary, 2005) The agreement will create rights and obligations that contracts, in many instances, do not have to be in writing to be legally binding.
Mary should have stated that time is of the essence in her contract with SHAKE so that her intention is clearly defined. This is a breach of warranty. The commercial project between The Cookie Monster and Mary was not known by SHAKE, therefore it is not in contemplation by SHAKE. With reference to Hadley v Baxendale(1854) case, the court held that Baxendale was not liable for the loss of profit. Baron Alderson held that : ‘Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as
Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd [1983] Com LR 158 -> unilateral mistake would operate if the non-mistaken party knew or should have known the mistake BUT Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005]1 SLR 502 -> the degree of the knowledge of the mistake was considered; if aware-> no consensus ad idem If constructive knowledge is sufficient, i.e. the non-mistaken party ought to have known of the other party’s mistake? ->an equitable concept (English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co Ltd v Brunton [1892] 2 QB 700, 707)->should not be declared void under common law as the objective principle cannot be displaced if there is ONLY pure constructive knowledge However, mere fact of no actual knowledge doesn’t mean that the contract should be performed; or else there would