Administration Of Contracts In Business Law. [Author Name(S),

Mr. Simpson, a minor resident of California, is seeking to inherit from the estate of Mrs. Sweeney, decedent and resident of California at time of death, under the doctrine of equitable adoption. Mrs. Sweeney is the widow of Sam Sweeney (hereinafter called “Mr. Sweeney”), and the mother of Hannah Sweeney (hereinafter referred to as “Hannah”), the biological daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sweeney (hereinafter referred to jointly as “the Sweeney’s”). Simpson interview, pg 3. In 2008, the Sweeney’s obtained formal custody of Mr. Simpson from the San Diego, Superior Court in California. Id. at 7. Mr. Simpson was eight at the time of obtaining custody. Id. at 4. The custody agreement awarded sole custody of Mr. Simpson to the Sweeney’s. During the time Mr. Sweeney was alive, Mrs. Sweeney attempted to talk Mr. Sweeney into formal adoption of Mr. Sweeney numerous time to no avail. Id. at 4. Mr. Sweeney did not believe in formal adoption of children, but nevertheless he continued to care for Mr. Simpson as he was his own child. Id. Mrs. Sweeney also spoke with an attorney about adoption while Mr. Sweeney was still alive. Id. at 5. During this time the Sweeney’s fed, clothed, and provided a home for Mr. Simpson without the financial support of others. Id. at 6. Mr. Simpson also went on vacations and took part in events, such as family pictures, that would form a familial relationship, and Mrs. Sweeney wore a “mothers ring” with Hannah’s and Mr.

Most time, acceptance would be made in clear and loud matters, such as saying “Yes, I accept.” But silence would constitute acceptance of an offer where the common-law and statutory law allows. Supreme Court of Nebraska has confirmed in Joseph Heiting and Sons v. Jacks Bean Co that acceptance may be established by silence or inaction of an offeree and acceptance occurs when the buyer/offeree “does any act inconsistent with the seller/offeror’s ownership...” Neb. U.C.C. section 2-606(1)(c). In Joseph Heiting and Sons v. Jacks Bean Co, 463 N.W.2d 817, 236 Neb. 765 (Neb.,1990), Heiting (Plaintiff) offered to sell its beans at the posted price on September 30, 1987, but was never informed of acceptance or rejection of the offer. Heiting and Jacks

Id. at 286. In In Re Estate of Hunsaker, the living spouse testified they felt married, the couple wore engagement rings, and displayed a grandfather clock engraved implying the same last initial. Id. These three facts, led the Supreme Court of Montana to conclude the couple had satisfied mutual consent. Id. The court reasoned that the implications of the facts are sufficient. Id. (Citing Slavens P.2d 293 at 295).

The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.

Enforceable contract Peter v. Don. Peter will have an enforceable contract with Don if he can show that all the required elements of a contract are present. If there is a contract between the two then it will be governed by the common law requirements of an enforceable contract instead of the Uniformed Commercial Code, which would be used if their agreement had involved the sale of goods. In order for a contract to be formed between Peter and Don the two must react mutual consent Mutual consent can generally be formed through the form of an (A) offer and (B) acceptance. An additional requirement for both parties to show (C) consideration is also

A legally binding promise must also always be supported by consideration, a prerequisite defined as “the exchange of promises from each party- from the promisor to the promisee”. There is uncertainty in whether the consideration offered in this situation is sufficient or not. Moral obligations regarding “natural love and affection” are not deemed to be sufficient consideration unless there is a legal obligation involved. Whether Billy’s initial decision to work on the farm creates a sufficient enough legal obligation for

Bernie a resident of Richmond, Virginia decides to sale his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,000.00 and places an ad in his local newspaper on February 1st. After several weeks without any inquiries, Vivian contacts Bernie on March 1st stating she will pay him $12,000.00 for the car. Bernie arranges to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the deal. Vivian comes to Bernie’s house on March 10th and says she will give Bernie $12,500.00 for the car; but she needs three additional weeks to come up with the money. Bernie agrees but only if Vivian puts down a deposit. Vivian agrees and Bernie drafts an agreement stated the sale will must take place no later than March 31st. Vivian reads and signs the agreement and

The court held that the participation of P’s aunt and grandmother in the transaction did not change the rule that contracts by a minor regarding personal property are voidable.

In contrast, the case In Re Southard, 365 P.3d 1089 (2015), the court found that the nonparent should have custody of the child due to a child-parent relationship. In this case, the mother had married two men Southard and Larkins twice. Southard, 365 P.3d at 1092. The result of these multiple unions was three children. Southard, 365 P.3d at 1092. At the end the mother’s fourth marriage with Southard, he received custody of all three children including AR who was not Southard’s biological child, but Larkins. Id. The mother petitioned for custody, but custody was denied. Id. The court found that Southard had physical custody of AR for a year and had developed a child-parent relationship. Id. The court also decided that the time Southard spent with AR were not caused by custodial inference, but by the marriage of the mother and Southard. Id. at 105.

Legislation and case law has been evolving throughout history surrounding testamentary promises. The attitudes of the courts have ebbed and flowed towards claims testing the validity of a will. New Zealand was the first country in the commonwealth jurisdiction to enact a family protection act, the Testators Family Maintenance Act 1900. Although legislation has changed considerably since the incorporation of the first act, the central concept has remained essentially unchanged. There are three main statutes in New Zealand governing family protection and testamentary promises, Property (relationships) Act 1976, Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Family Protection Act 1955. This essay will explore these

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

Contracts can be defined through promises between parties that are enforceable through law. We know that both parties agreed verbally, an oral agreement was made to hold the car for one day with a hundred-dollar deposit and Stan agreed to the terms that the deposit was refundable. Contracts can be in in two form which are written or oral. Based on the elements of contracts, many fundamentals factors are considered mandatory to form a contract that is binding on parties and are primarily outlined through the following:

Contracts, business, and laws are three simple little words, but when put together they have a substantial impact on our everyday lives. Below we will discuss three case studies. The first case is between Chris, Matt, and Ian vs. Donald Margolin, who was injured when he used an aftershave lotion that he bought off the internet called Funny Face. The second case is between Sam, his landlord, and a national chain store. Sam is being accused of conducting business from his apartment and going back on a verbal promise. In the last case is two lifelong friends who decided to join in a partnership and open up a sporting goods shop. Therefore, before the appropriate court can proceed with the first case, the court should take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and whether or not corporation/or corporate offices can be held for the criminal or potential act. In the second case before the court can rule the court should determine the various elements of a valid contract, if a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam 's claims. Finally, in the third case between Jeb and Josh, they should determine the type of business entity that will overall protect their business and personal needs.

In BROGDEN v METROPOLITAN RAIL CO it was held the railway company had accepted by placing orders since the amendment of the document, and in TRENTHAM LTD v ARCHITAL LUXFER the court used the 'reasonable man' to identify whether or not there has been acceptance. Both cases seemed to have reasonable outcomes; therefore the courts had been provided with satisfactory rules to help them reach a appropriate verdict. There are various different rules regarding acceptance. There must be a communication of acceptance from the offeree to the offeror. The case of YATES BUILDING v PULLEYN deals whether there had been a prescribed acceptance or not. It was held that there was no practical difference to the offeror therefore the acceptance method was binding. However in the case of ENTORES LTD v MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION there was no prescribed acceptance, yet it was held that the contract was formed in England as that was there acceptance had been received by telex. Other rules that can be used to decide whether there has been acceptance include a waiver of communication of acceptance; silence, which isn't a valid acceptance; ignorance, generally there isn't a binding contract; and acceptance via post using the postal rule. The postal rule can often be misused, as it states that a contract has been formed as