Therefore, there is a situation of Undisclosed Principal, where an agent acts without disclosing either the existence of a principal or the principal’s identity and the agent is directly liable to the third party. If Newcorp’s senior management is concerned over his public display of his personal views as a basis for his termination the judgment is erroneous. However, there might have been some apprehension over the agency relationship to third parties because principals have both contractual and tort liability for certain acts of their agents (Jennings, 2006). The contract liability of a principal is not only determined by either what he intended or by the limitations agreed to privately by the agent and the principal, but also the third parties have certain contract enforcement rights depending on the nature of the agent’s work and the authority given
Q: b. What could Kiffe have done in negotiating the contract to protect itself from this contingency? A: Kiffe must to add the force majeure clause in their contract to protect itself from this contingency. Because of this accident is unforeseeable. Under force majeure clause, Kiffe had no liable for this contingency.
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?
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.
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.
Current California Tort Law Dubbed by Prosser the "little brother of conversion," the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property "not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered." (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.) Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury."
C). Despite the term that a past consideration is not consideration at all, a past act can be defined as a consideration if two conditions are met. (1), the act performed is requested by the other party. (2), consideration of both parties at all time must have been that there would be a payment made. The case of Lampleigh v Brathwaite (1615) is a good example where the claimant sued for breach of contract.
Any time an arguer intentionally leaves a premise or conclusion unstated, it is safe to assume that the omission was intended to conceal a weak or questionable step in the argument. Answer: false Reason: just sometime the missing statement is something so obvious and familiar that it would be tedious to state it explicitly. 4. When an argument is standardized, the conclusion is placed above the premises. Answer: false Reason: When an argument is standardized, the conclusion is placed under the premises.
Law Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council shows that unsigned exclusion clauses need to be clearly defined to a reasonable person. Another case highlighting the need for exclusions to be clearly informed to the other party is the case of Causer v Browne. As for the case of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd the court held that the company providing defective product is liable for their negligence. If reasonably sufficient notice is given as to the existence of an exemption clause, then it is accepted by the courts that that clause becomes parts of the contract. The case that set this dictum, and which laid our the guidelines for testing the reasonableness and sufficiency of the notice
b. be rescinded because Murray had superior knowledge about the bat. c. not be rescinded because a deal is a deal. d. not be rescinded because Lew's mistake concerns the value of the bat. 27. Business Investment Company and Chic Properties, Inc., contract for the sale of a retail mall. A mutual mistake of fact will make it possible for either party to rescind the contract a. if the mistake of fact is immaterial.