Case Scenario

NURSES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPEMENTATION OF HEALTHCARE POLICY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: CASE SCENARIO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

I think the fact that BTT gave Chou $25,000 for exclusive negotiating rights shows that BTT had the intent of signing a contract with Chou. The two parties also reached an initial oral agreement although oral agreements are hard to prove in court. BTT also sent Chou a fax asking him to send a draft for a distribution agreement contract.

The Gianni agreement was in writing and the issue in this case was is there an enforceable oral agreement. The courts ruled that under the parol evidence rule, “Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only evidence of their agreement.” Any preliminary negotiations and verbal agreements are superseded by the written contract, and no evidence of such other verbal agreements is to be considered by the court. In the absence of fraud or mistake, a written agreement is the only evidence of the agreement between two parties.

The U.S. court of appeals ruled that the general release Marder signed was an enforceable contract. In other words, the court of appeals agreed with the district court’s verdict dismissing Marder’s complaint against Paramount. Marder’s complaint against Paramount was invalid because the contract she had sign with them covered all four of the characteristic found within a legal contract. Both parties made an agreement to release and discharge during the signing of the contract. Paramount paying Marder $2,300 is classified as a promise that was supported by a bargain-for consideration. Marder had contractual capacity and the objective of the contract was lawful. Marder should have negotiated for a percentage of the profit instead of signing off

Co. v. Tolley, 351 Pa. Super. 32, 41 (1985) (internal quotations omitted). If a court found that the failure to render payment under these factors constituted an immaterial breach, then the caseation of work would then constitute a breach. This analysis is a fact-intensive analysis, and accordingly, I cannot definitely opine on how a court interpret these factors in this case. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that HDR’s failure to render payment in accordance with the contract would constitute a material breach. So long as 1) HDR did—in fact—breach the contract; and 2) that breach was material, Century is justified in stopping work under the project. Nevertheless, I must bring to your attention these risks associated with stopping work.

Billy is interested in whether or not he is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm. This question raises two issues, firstly whether there was originally a valid contract as this transaction is made between family members (i.e. father and son) and secondly , did the second agreement made between Choy and Billy regarding the extra $20,000 intend to be legally binding or simply a representation to persuade Billy to stay.

This scenario deals with Big Time Toymaker and a contract they were negotiating with Chou, the inventor of a new strategy game that BTT wanted exclusive negotiation rights for a 90-day period. When Chou received an email with the details of what they were going to agree upon, he thought that was the contract and did not proceed in drawing up a contract himself. Months passed and when BTT changed management, they informed Chou that they were not interested in distributing his new strategy game, Strat.

Grocery Inc. received 15 cases and did not get the full 20 on time. Because of this it not only complicated everything for Grocery INC. but they want to cancel the agreement with Cereal Inc. because they failed to produce the right amount of shipments. Because Cereal Inc. failed to live up to its commitment it would than mean that Grocery Inc. has a full right to reject the shipments as well as cancel the contract because none of the terms were met. Therefore the Grocery Inc. has a full right to reject the contract since the terms of the contract were not completed.

This scenario is being played out in a teaching hospital setting. A patient, who is Mexican, is admitted for undergoing a series of medical tests as he is suffering from stomachache for many months and the doctors have been unable to determine the exact cause. . He is an old man and has recently come to America from Mexico. Now, it is time for Doctor’s rounds with a group of student’s and one nurse practitioner. So, the conversation starts,

The party making false representation has made it either purposely or negligently just to mislead the other party. The aggrieved party, relied on the statement, believing it to be true and acted upon it, this may became a cause of loss to the aggrieved party. In addition, the representation of the fact must be made before the conclusion of the agreement.

A legal discussion of the contractual breaches and their related legal elements will be examined in this section. Some of the legal issues surrounding the contractual breaches include, the legal implications of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), the defendant’s engagement in and outputs contract while under a requirements contract with my company, the doctrine of estoppel, and the issues of good faith and fair dealing. The definitions and some of the legal implications of the implied and requirements contracts were discussed in the preceding sections. An implied contract is defined as a “contract that is established by the conduct of a party rather than by the party’s written or spoken words” (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p. 241) Kubasek, Brennan, and Browne’s definition of an implied contract is reflected and supported by Oklahoma Statue, §15-133, which states, “An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct” (Oklahoma Statue, §15-133). Under both definitions the defendant’s continued business relationship with my company is an implied contract; therefore, the defendant’s unwillingness to continue supplying my company is a breach of contract. As to the second form of contract under dispute, a further examination of the U.C.C. law’s impact on requirements contracts and output contracts is necessary. U.C.C. §2-306 (1) requires only one method of valid contract cancellation on the grounds that “no quantity unreasonably

According to Melvin (2011, p. 155), "The exclusive negotiation agreement stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing." Also a fact that weighs in Chou's favor is that Chou has records of e-mail communication of terms of the distribution agreement made by BTT as well as Chou getting a faxed request from BTT three days before the end of the 90-day period to send a draft for a distribution agreement contract, which he immediately sent.

1) There was an oral contract between both parties when they reached an agreement before the 90 days period to decide distribution. Although Chou never made an actual written contract. BTT’s email that spelled out that all terms were met and agreed upon by both parties sent to Chou with the title of Strat Deal on it would be taken as equal parties’ acceptance. Since both parties did not

A mistake occurs when parties have a mistaken belief about a fact upon entering into a contract. If only one party is mistaken, it is a unilateral mistake, and generally contract performance is not excused, and breaching may have consequences. In a bilateral mistake situation, both parties are mistaken, and the contract will generally be void. The unilateral mistake rule would not apply if Sudson is found to have misled Letisha. Unilateral mistakes can also void a contract if one side

However, this evaluation is typically somewhat complex where a lengthy period of negotiations is undertaken between the parties involved in a given case (Poole, 2014). That this may prove to be the case is endorsed because it could prove to be somewhat hard to effectively ascertain as to when an agreement between the parties involved was reached (Kennedy v. Lee (1817) 3 Mer 441). Nonetheless, even where there may potentially be problems associated with an ongoing period of negotiations in the circumstances of a case, a court could still find that there was a concluded bargain so any further negotiations that take place did not have to necessarily mean that their agreement will need to be terminated (Davies v. Sweet [1962] 2 QB 300). The reason for this is that, in looking to reach a decision with regard to the negotiations that are place before it for consideration, a court will consider the nature and scope of the key aspects of any given contract in the form of the offer, consideration and acceptance (McKendrick, 2013). This is because it is on the basis of these three factors that it is then possible for the court to provide their decision about as to whether a valid binding contract has been formed so this essay will now consider each of these factors in turn (McKendrick, 2013).