Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. We review a circuit court's decision regarding an equitable remedy under the abuse of discretion standard. V. Holding We conclude that Cicmanec entered into a binding, enforceable contract, and because he breached this contract, Ziegler Funeral Home is entitled on remand to relief. VI. Rationale or Reasoning All the essential terms were expressed in this agreement.
rejection by entering into a substitute transaction, he is excused from performance obligations B. Determined by Little condition is not completely within the promisor's control C. Sufficient cause An agreement that gives one party an unfettered right to terminate at any time will be interpreted to require “reasonable notice,” thus placing a limitation on that party's freedom sufficient to satisfy the consideration requirement 1. Certain terms (open) buyer is constrained to request amounts that are not unreasonably disproportional there is clearly consideration for the modification and it is enforceable the modern rule, an offer for a unilateral contract becomes an option for the offeree 2.
Also, the promissor has to expect that, upon the promise, it will induce action by the promisee. The promissor cannot say it wasn't part of the contract. Why does this doctrine exist? The doctrine exists to protect a person who was promised something and there is no essential elements of a contract that exists. Did the court reach the proper decision in the case you discussed?
To determine if a court might grant specific performance as a remedy for a breach of contract, it must first be determined what constitutes specific performance and the elements that accompany it. “The equitable remedy of specific performance calls for the performance of the act promised in the contract” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, Pg. 246). This remedy will usually “not be granted unless the party’s legal remedy (monetary damages) is inadequate” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, Pg. 246).
Policy is an important consideration for the courts to decide the duty owed by defendants. Lord Bridge suggested that it should be fair, just and reasonable when imposing duty on defendant. It is thought that the imposition of a duty solely base on foreseeability of damage is not desirable. As Winfield and Jolowicz suggests that “the court must decide not simply whether there is or is not a duty, but whether there should or should not be one.” For the purpose of this essay, I will discuss how policy can influence the imposition of duty. The most important policy concern has always been the “floodgates argument”.
See Restatement (Second) of Contracts§ 205 (1981) ("Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement. "); Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 156 F.3d 535, 542 (4th Cir. 1998) ("`The courts could leave all discretion in performance unbridled.. . . No U.S. court now takes this approach.
The plaintiff appealed. Issue The court sought to determine whether the past consideration done gratuitously would make the promise of future agreement enforceable. Holding/Decision The court upheld the lower courts findings, that the promise made by Tallas was not supported by any consideration and that the agreement showed that Tallas planned on making the change sometime in the future. They also found that the work done by the
Common Law applies to services and real contracts and would not apply to Grocery, Inc. in this scenario. Common law contract formation is considered stricter than contract formation under UCC Article 2 guidelines. Under Common Law, acceptance of a contract must follow the mirror image rule. Any manner that shows agreement to the contract (words, actions, writing) is considered acceptance under the UCC Article 2. Common Law requires essential terms of a contract to be definite.
It must be established whether the claim was false, fictitious or fraudulent. 3. The government also needs to prove that the false, fictitious or fraudulent claim was material (Salcido, 2009). 4. Another element that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt so as to secure a conviction is that When the US government provides any section of money or property that is essential or demanded, or the state decides to return a contractor, grantee or recipient the requested or demanded money, false claim documents do not need to be submitted directly to the government as the provision virtually covers everything that is of value.