Question 2: What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts in favor: There are several facts that are in favor of Chou for intent to contract. The first is that an oral distribution agreement as met, and that an email was sent by BTT with the agreement terms that included price, time frames, and the obligations of both parties. Also after the draft was again requested via fax by BTT it was immediately sent with no timely rejection. Facts against: In the original negotiation agreement it was stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
Lim argued that his bid constituted an ac¬ceptance of DotTV’s offer to sell the name. DotTV contended that Lim’s bid was an offer, which it had not accepted. Furthermore, even if it had accepted Lim’s offer, because the auction was “with re¬serve,” DotTV could withdraw the domain name from the auction even after acceptance. The trial court held for DotTV, and Lim
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.
Let's explore a few ways in which offer and acceptance occurs sans an expressed agreement: a purchase order and the mailbox rule. The Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC, is a body of rules that govern the sale of goods and other commercial transactions in the United States and looks at the use of a purchase order as an invitation to accept an offer. To elaborate, when a company issues a purchase order, what they are really doing is making a written, expressed promise without consideration to purchase products or services from another company that require prompt shipment. Since consideration is necessary to make a contract binding, the UCC made a rule that, although consideration is not
Armstrong is obligated to transfer and deliver conforming goods to GCI. Conforming goods requires that the goods must conform exactly to the agreed upon description provided by the buyer to the seller. This action is referred to as tender of delivery and the UCC obligates the seller to have or tender the specific goods requested. By substituting the third part of the press Armstrong has not yet breached the contract but has not provided perfect tender. 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.
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.
In this case, Dyer bought a vehicle from Walt Bennett Ford. Even though she received a contract for the transaction, the salesperson assured her that the tax on the vehicle was paid by the seller. The contract had a clear statement of being the final agreement and any other agreement will not be considered part of the clauses of the transaction and the buyer or seller cannot uses any other proof to justify any terms not covered in writing in the contract. Dyer sue Walt Bennett on the basis of breach of contract and Walt Bennett argued on the basis of absence of parole evidence rule. The parole evidence rule requires, in the absence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or something of the kind the exclusion of all prior or contemporaneous oral or written evidence that would add to or vary the parties’ integrated written contract.”(Mallor, 2013, Pp448-451).
Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data.
Licensers sometimes feel the licensing company doesn't understand or that it disregards or misrepresents the product. Internal conditions in the second-party company can adversely affect the marketing campaign. Any company that contracts with a company overseas needs to be aware of local customs and laws. The last thing a business needs to happen is legal charges being brought against them. If a situation should occur then the company could be covered by t the Conflict of laws which has three branches , Jurisdiction whether the forum court has the power to resolve the dispute at hand, Choice of law the law which is being applied to resolve the dispute, and Foreign judgments the ability to recognize and enforce a judgment from an external forum within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating forum.
HEARSAY/Non-Hearsay Hearsay – Supra Will Frank Torino’s testimony regarding Nordstrom’s regional manager’s phone call to him (Frank), be admitted as hearsay? If it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, Frank is testifying as an agent of Novelty, that Nordstrom’s called Frank to indicate that Novelty breached their vendor agreement. The NonHearsay would be under “Verbal Acts” since the truth of that matter is not at issue. Verbal acts - verbal acts not offered for their truth.