This paper will discuss whether or not that money is considered to be gross income to Kim. My personal understanding of section 109 of the Internal Revenue code is that this would not be considered as income as it was in lieu of the restoration that the lessee should have completed upon termination of the lease. However, after reading the cases of Boston Fish Market Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Sirbo Holdings, Inc., my interpretation has changed. In the case of Boston Fish Market Corporation v. CIR of 1972, the courts’ interpretation of section 109 determined that the amount received by lessor is not considered to be gross income. In this particular case, the lessee paid the lessor $47,500 to restore property to original configuration upon termination of the lease instead of actually restoring the property.
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.
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.
Mary should have stated that time is of the essence in her contract with SHAKE so that her intention is clearly defined. This is a breach of warranty. The commercial project between The Cookie Monster and Mary was not known by SHAKE, therefore it is not in contemplation by SHAKE. With reference to Hadley v Baxendale(1854) case, the court held that Baxendale was not liable for the loss of profit. Baron Alderson held that : ‘Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as
(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….
• 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.
The court will most likely upheld the employee manual for terminating employees for unsatisfactory performance. The employee manual will be an implied contract and Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. will support his claim. Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. the court rule in favor of Champion Jogbra, Inc. because the company put a clause in the employee manual stating: “They do not constitute part of an employment contract, nor are they intended to make any commitment to any employee concerning how individual employment action can, should, or will be
This test was examined in the Carparo Industries Plc. v Dickman case. The defendant had an account audited that didn’t reflect a previous loss and debts in the bookkeeping records, instead, profits, putting the claimants in a belief that, the company in question is worth investing in. Afterwards, the claimants found out the audited account didn’t reflect exactly the true previous and current status of the company financial dilemma. Based on the principles of the three-part-fold, the House of Lords ruled against the claimant that: the defendant owes no duty of care to the claimant in such circumstances.
That Commission, having reviewed the history and roots of the insurable interest principle, resolved that if a loss has been suffered, the lack of interest either at the date of the contract or at the time prior to the loss should not prevent recovery. The requirement for strict proprietary interest legal or equitable has been replaced by a test
A dead person who was not entitled to vote, so therefore was acquitted. However if it does give an absurd outcome, the judges apply the golden rule. The golden rule allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. Although it points to a kind of middle ground between the literal rule and the mischief rule, the golden rule is not actually a compromise between them. Like the literal rule, the golden rule gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning.