Theory to practice Week 4 1. At what point, if ever, did the parties have a contract? The parties had an oral contract three days before the expiration of the 90-day period; both parties reached an oral distribution agreement at a meeting. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Assignments submitted after the due date (late assignments) cannot be uploaded to Blackboard. Instead, they need to be emailed directly to John Polichronis (email@example.com). 10. Late submissions will receive a mark of zero. Please be aware that the suggested solution will be released within two days of the submission date, so any assignment submitted after this date without prior approval will attract a score of zero.
Two months later, the union submitted a formal letter to the company stating the companyâ€™s response to the handwritten request was unsatisfactory and the union would proceed with arbitration. The company argues that the union did not go through the agreed upon appropriate channels for communication of requests and the claim in invalid; the union argues that they are still entitled to file for arbitration despite not following the agreed upon and binding rules for requesting arbitration. 1. Assess the argument that the parties in the past have agreed to extend time limits. According to both parties, time limits have been extended in the past without incident.
When demand for capacitors and the tantalum used in their manufacture increased dramatically in late 2000, Cabot took advantage of what was then a seller's market to negotiate aggressively a multi-year deal. Eighteen months after executing the contract, AVX brought suit in Federal court claiming that it was the product of economic duress. When that suit was dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, Cabot brought suit in the Superior Court seeking a declaration that the contract was valid and binding on the parties. A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment for Cabot, concluding that there was no economic duress where the contract was the product of hard bargaining and not any unlawful or wrongful act, and where the values exchanged between the parties were not disproportionate. The judge also concluded that AVX had ratified the contract by its conduct, thereby waiving any claim of duress.
Use the cost information Jennifer has assembled to construct a forecast of cost of goods sold and operating expenses for 2004 through 2009. Assume first that the Bernoulli will be introduced, with its new cost structure, one year from now, and then calculate a cost forecast assuming that the $18 million is not provided for development of the new product. 3. Using the information developed for Questions 1 and 2, develop a discounted cash flow analysis for the Bernoulli division for 2004 through 2009. Working's board has asked for net present value and internal rate of the return when making decisions in the past.
The initial negotiation deal states that there would not be any distribution agreement/contracts if it was not in writing and signed by both parties. Although the BTT manager did post an email to Chou outlining the terms and conditions of a distribution contract it does not officially confirm an agreement because neither party signed the document to seal a contract agreement as was required. Without any signatures of either parties or legally binding drafts it was previously agreed upon by both parties that no agreement or contracts exist. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Reasons Accepting the Trimmer’s allegations that Van Bomel agreed to set up a fund which would permit Trimmer to live for the remainder of his life in the sumptuous style to which he had been accustomed, Van Bomel admitted having discussions from time to time about making finances available to Trimmer. According to the principles of contract law, ‘agreement in order to be binding must be sufficiently definite to enable a court to give it an exact meaning’. Since Trimmer and Van Bomel had a vague and legally unenforceable memoranda of agreement prepared after oral negotiations, and there were no indications as to the amount of the arrangement, time of payments, mechanics of the payments rights of the parties in the event of various contingences were discussed, Trimmer and Van Bomel had an alleged agreement which was too vague and legally unenforceable.
Essays must be submitted on www.turnitin.com Sunday, March 25th by 11:59 PM. Essays not submitted on website will not be graded and will receive a zero. Late essays penalized for each day late. Assign your essay a title that reflects your ideas. See the rubric on the following page.
Legal Issues: The ultimate legal issue that emerged was whether the interaction between McLean and Stevenson resulted in a contract in regards to purchasing of the warrant of iron. This brought about debate between the two parties and meant analyzing the telegrams that were exchanged between McLean and Stevenson to identify whether a contract was formed or not. Legal Reasoning: The defendant, McLean argued that the telegram sent by Stevenson to him on the Monday morning clearly indicated a rejection to his offer and was suggesting a new offer. Therefore he reasoned he had the right to ignore the new offer. Stevenson argued that his telegram was merely an inquiry and not a proposal for a new offer.
This was an oral agreement days before the 90-day period. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011 Only an oral agreement was reached; legal draft and the signature of both company’s present and no contract exists. 2. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts that weight in favor of Chou: • Big time had paid $25K for the negotiation rights for his board game; this would make Chou to think that the company had an agreement • everything they agreed on was oral agreement * Facts that weigh against Chou: • no written contract • No signatures 4.