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?
Sullivan and GWI were doing business as usual without a renewal of contract. Sullivan believed that because GWI never renewed their original contract that they would continue with the way things was with the original contract. Sullivan never thought to make a new contract for the new agreement with Kaleidoscope and cancel the old contract. GWI can try to argue a breach of contract with Sullivan because they terminated their business with GWI and gain exclusive right to distribute GWI products with the same arbitration provisions as before, but there was no actual contract. GWI consented to the agreement of Kaleidoscope Distribution Agreement along with Sullivan.
Review Memo to the Executive Vice-President This message should be short but complete coverage of the subject matter. The information remaining should be worded concisely. The executive vice-president would like to know the differences between the two terms LIFO and FIFO so that the management can decide which inventory valuation method the company should use. Therefore, focusing on how it would affect on the P&L statements is necessary. Start the memo by mentioning to the main point that he is looking for.
The lead-time required to complete the renovation was by October 15. Goodman subcontracted the work, but even the renovation was not completed on time. Besides DDS found that the work was completed was of poor quality. Goodman did not file the articles of incorporation for his new corporation until November1. The partners of DDS sued Goodman to hold him liable for the renovation contracts.
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.
If an agreement cannot be made between the two parties, the NLRA only requires the employer to “head back to the table” and to continue to bargain in good faith; and “as long as employers appear to be bargaining in good faith, they can extend the negotiation process indefinitely without tangible results” (Craver, 2009). As a result, many unions fail because the first contract negotiating efforts are unsuccessful. Nearly “one-third of newly certified unions never obtain a first collective bargaining contract” (Twomey, 2009). Some argue that employers purposely delay first contract agreements (acting in “bad faith”) in an effort to cease union representation. One method of delaying the agreement is for employers to bring up issues of trivial nature, as a way to hold up the bargaining process.
Litronic refused to accept them, arguing that he 90-day warranty period had lapsed. RULE: KNOCKOUT DOCTRINE. When the seller’s and buyer’s terms differ materially, the two terms cancel each other out, and the contested term is supplied by a Code gap-filler. Posner points out, however, that he would prefer a rule that says all additional terms are different terms and vice versa, thus UCC 2-207(2) about additional terms should apply, unless materially alter the contract. Prof. Goldberg, on the other hand, suggests a “best shot” rule, where all terms in one form should be enforced based on their relative fairness.
Pat could argue that signing the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan as an implied contract protecting his employment with NewCorp. Critical information in this case needs to be further reviewed to assess the risks and rights of both parties in this scenario. For instance, was there any form of documented performance discussion regarding Pat’s performance? If so, was Pat given the opportunity to correct his performance issue? Or, in the initial employment arrangement, was there promise of employment for any period of time?
Anthony Murphree Mrs.Hartman Period 6 2/20/13 End Electoral Vote System The Electoral College system is no longer useful in today’s society and needs to be removed from the presidential voting system. When it was first created it was used because the framers did not have anything better to put in its place at the time. The Electoral College does not even do what it was originally intended to do (Encourage candidates to take small states seriously). It is also only used in the most important election, it was removed other elections because it was felt that the system was unfair. The Electoral College system is faulty and needs to be removed from the presidential voting system.
THE DOCTRINE OF PRIVITY OF A CONTRACT INTRODUCTION THE doctrine of privity of contract is related to issues of the creation of contractual obligations, concerning with the question of who has rights and liabilities under a contract. It is sometimes argued that some aspects of the doctrine are just another way of stating the rule that consideration must move from the promise. Two principal questions to be considered; May a person who is not a party to a contract acquire rights under it? Can a contract impose duties on a person who is not a party to it? The first part of the doctrine relates to the conferring of benefits, was the subject of major reform in the Contracts(Rights of 3rd parties)Act 1999.This Act was based on the recommendations of the Law Commission Report No.242,Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties(Cmnd 3329),and applies to contracts made on or after 11 May 2000.although the old law may still be applicable to some contracts, most questions on privity will now require you to show an understanding of the new legislation, also asked however whether the reform is satisfactory, and this will also require knowledge of the previous law.