Business Law

762 Words4 Pages
B Bai 1 : Business Law: 40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract. Decision: Esposito had to pay $62.5 to Excel 41. Principle of Law: The bargain between the nephew and his uncle is an oral contract, therefore the nephew’s promise…show more content…
Therefore, Pote had to estimate all costs before submitting its written price quotation for concrete and its quotation was unable to be for informational purposes. Decision: Pote’s bid didn’t constitute a valid offer. 36. Principle of Law: The transaction between Browne and Houlihan was just under negotiation process and not form the contract. Browne did not acknowledge Houlihan’s e-mail and did not reply to accept Houlihan’s request, so he sold the television set to another. Houlihan then purchased a new set more expensive than Browne’s set. Both of them didn’t break the contract because there’s no contract between them. Therefore Houlihan had no legal basis to sue Browne for $1,000. Decision: Houlihan and Browne didn’t have a valid contract, and Houlihan will be unable to recover $1,000 from Browne. 37. Principle of Law: The contract is an agreement agreed among parties. If there’s any changes related to the contract, all parties in the contract had to be informed and agree changes. However, in this case McGurn crossed out the number 12, replaced it with the number 24 without informing Bell about this and signed the contract. Bell didn’t acknowledge the change that had been made to the contract. If there’s any dispute raised from this contract, Bell can refuse its obligation with the reason

More about Business Law

Get Access