Reasonable reliance of an offer may prevent revocation as well, through promissory estoppel but should only be used as a fallback position if some real contract can be relied upon. An as stated offer should last only as long as is stated to last. If there no statement, then it lasts some reasonable amount of time. Death or incompetence can negate an offer as it destroys the power of acceptance. Rejection of an offer also destroys the power of acceptance and counter offers shall be deemed a rejection of offer with only two exceptions; a counter offer in an options contact where consideration can be applied to keep the offer open, and the mere inquiry rule which is a reply to the offeror by the offeree with no intent to reject.
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.
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).
In this case the court ruled that changing an employee’s work hours does not constitute constructive discharge under Title VII. In this case we have to determine if the employee ever asked us for a schedule accommodation. The opinion of the court may differ from this case if our employee had brought this concern to our attention and we did not offer an accommodation. Looking further into Title VII an employer may be guilty of discriminating against religious beliefs or practices unless a reasonable accommodation could be reached without undue hardship on our business. If the employee were to pursue a prima facie case they would have to prove three things to win in court: they have a bona fide religious belief that is in conflict
To be negotiable, an instrument may be signed anywhere. _F_ 7. An order stating "I wish you would pay" is not sufficient to create a negotiable instrument. (397) _T_ 8. A conditional promise to pay is not a negotiable instrument.
Under the statue of frauds BTT would not be held liable for not distributing Strat and simple walk away from the deal. 5. No BTT cannot avoid the contract under the doctrine of mistake, because BTT had proposed on meeting its commitments by giving a verbal agreement, before all the changes occurred in their facility. They had sent Chou a fax demanding a plan of the dispersal contract after they had sent him an e-mail that Chou supposed to have switched the previous perception asking him to sketch up a contract. "A unilateral mistake is when only one party had an erroneous
It is tactical in nature when expeditor was picking up parts with no confirmed orders or supply department receiving invoices for items that could not be matched to corresponding purchase order. 2. Purchasing procedures at Blozis are related to specifications, the use of requisitions, purchase orders, and receipt and delivery. Should these be changed? Why or why not?
It allows two or more parties to make promises to each other and not have to worry whether or not the promise will be honored (Mallor, et al, 2010, p. 290). The validity of a contract rests on the content of its pages. Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, and Langvardt (2010) state that, “A set of promises must be based on a voluntary agreement made up of an offer and an acceptance, and a legal consideration to support each party’s promise” (p. 292). An offer, an acceptance, and a consideration of a promise made by the parties are the basic elements of a contract. These contract conditions are subject to interpretation from the court.
The appellate court reversed the trail court’s ruling that Winkle was entitled to the profit – sharing bonus. The court held the opinion that since Winkle has not been paid his salary and bonus, therefore the contract had not been executed. “Section 1698 of the Civil Code provides: A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’… “Section 1698 has a dual operation. On the one hand it invalidates oral contracts of modification that are unexecuted, and on the other hand it validates executed agreements that might otherwise fail for lack of consideration...”(668 P 2d
A particularly important issue that has been raised is whether a person who acquires property after the institution of the regulatory regime should have any claim whatsoever. Some argue that such a landowner should not, having acquired the property knowing the restrictions to which it was subject and presumably at a price that reflected those restrictions. Others argue that to eliminate any such claim would enable government effectively to extinguish substantial value of the property without any recourse for the owner. The Supreme Court has concluded that the timing of the acquisition