First, they say that it was no intention that brings to the legally binding agreement. But the court held that there was legal intention because it was a commercial transaction and intention was presumed. Another argue by the company said that the ad was just an invitation to treat (not a contract). But the court held that a newspaper advertisement was generally offers to treat, which in other word could be said specifically as an offer. Then, the company also argue that Mrs. Carlill did not make an acceptance or agreement to the offer, as one of a contract element.
The company is required to file the auditor's attestation report as part of the annual report”. 2. Ernst & Ernst argued that the mail rule was not relevant to its audits of First Securities since that rule only involved personal transactions on Nay and the escrow investors. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Consideration is the price paid to the other party of a binding agreement. Furthermore, did e-mail have any impact on the oral distribution reached between Big Time Toymaker (BTT) and Chou, were there ever a legal contract established between BTT and Chou? Contract Establishment BTT and Chou reached an oral distribution agreement at a business meeting. BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail and repeated the terms of the distribution agreement. The e-mail never mentioned the word “contract,” it did not have too because the four elements of contract formation were not present.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
He mortgaged the property to the bank and sought possession since he was not able to cope with the repayments. His wife then argued that she was entitled to proprietary interest in the house for the contributions she had made to the purchase. In this case, several arguments were delivered. Firstly, should the wife living with her husband in the matrimonial home be regarded as a person ‘in actual occupation’ of that land for the purposes of the LRA? Secondly, was her interest in the proceeds of sale of the land said to be subsisting “in reference” to the registered land, thus incapable of taking effect as overriding interests even if she were held to have been in actual occupation of the land and that her interest as
Occupy Wall Street Movement By Dennis Yutuc BUS 309 Professor Abedin Occupy Wall Street, a movement in which they oppose the idea of government saving major banks and other financial institutions. The feeling that these institutions are taking money to better them and not their clients probably escalated due to the ethical financial unrest this country has gone thru and is slowly trying to get out of. Prior to this, personally, I have never heard of this movement here in the states. Seen news and Internet posts about them all over the world but never saw it here in this country. It may have been around, but was not a huge movement until all this business with Enron, Goldman Sachs, and others were scrutinized over their financial
Leah Brown Argument FOR Prenuptial Agreements and Why They Should Be Enforced 1. If the agreement is valid. a. A prenuptial agreement requires each spouse to make full disclosure of his or her assets. In divorce, it is quite common for the husband to undervalue assets or fail to disclose them at all, so these assets can’t be made part of a settlement agreement.
This could possible arise from the contract that was signed by Wayne’s son. However, there are several reasons why this action may not be found in favor of Marshall. The first argument that Wayne would have in regards to this contract; would be the capacity to bind Wayne under this contract. There is no mention that the son is acting as an agent of the company and therefore would not be authorized to sign a contract for the company. In Gebhard v. Garnier (1876) it was found that a court cannot bind a person to a contract, if that contract was signed by a person with no authority to do so.
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?
(Storer v Manchester CC) 2.2 Dan’s Email as an offer Following Sonia’s offer, Dan’s later email to Sonia’s company account, was a counter-offer since it quoted a price higher and offered no discount (Combi (Singapore) Pte v Winston Camera). Simultaneously, Sonia’s original offer would become invalid. Dan might want to argue his ‘email offer’ is not legally recognized, as to avoid a binding contract. However, per S.17(1) Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO), it stated “unless otherwise agreed…. offer and acceptance may….