Contract Analysis Case Study: Peterson vs. Simpson This paper will give a brief legal and spiritual analysis of the case of Peterson vs. Simpson. Facts of the Case This is the case of Marshall Peterson, the customer, verses Marcia Simpson, owner and distributor of Fruit Fresh Inc. Fruit Fresh Inc., has been the producer and supplier of Muscadine grapes to Marshall Peterson’s local health food store for 6 months. Fruit Fresh Inc. had a commercial agreement with Marshall Peterson to supply Muscadine grapes on a monthly basis invoiced at a fixed term of thirty days. Marshall Peterson, agreed to pay Fresh Fruit Inc. in good faith within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice. After several months of continued business, Fresh Fruit Inc. …show more content…
The second part of the contract is referred to as consideration. Consideration is the term used to identify the entity or object that is being exchanged or bargained-for. The next element of a legally binding contract is called contractual capacity. Contractual capacity is defined as the legal ability of a person who is entering into a contract. For example, someone who is inebriated does not have the mental capacity to enter into a contract. And the final part of the contract is called a legal object. This means that the contract is legally bound. That means that no part of the contract can be illegal or against public policy. Therefore, given the above definition of a legal contract, all elements did not exist in the case of Peterson verses Simpson. First, the contract violates the agreement within a legal contract. The offer was made by Marshall Peterson but Fresh Fruit Inc. did not legally accept the contract. Fresh Fruits Inc. was not aware of its employee entering into the contract with Peterson nor did the employee have the legal authority to do so. If an agent has no authority to act on behalf of a principal but the agent still enters into a con- tract with a third party, the principal, regardless of the classification, is not bound to the contract unless the principal ratifies the agreement (Kippenhan, pg. 447). Not only was there no legal agreement, but there was a violation
In this paper I will discuss the various aspects of a Federal Contract Specialist position and what makes it different from many other government jobs. Some people think contracting is just shopping for a living, however, it requires great skill and attention to detail. Contract Specialists must be able to communicate effectively with their customers, vendors and other contracting personnel and they must be able to accurately interpret regulations and apply them appropriately. This position is a little bit customer service representative, a little bit personal shopper and a whole lot of legal assistant.
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
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
In this case, there are several important issues to note. The initial issues is that a contract was signed by a minor acting on behalf of the company and not by a specified owner of the company. The question here is if this contract is legally binding and what recourse of actions the parties may have. The first step would be to consider the legality of the contract. In order for a contract to be legal it has to possess several important criteria. Contracts have to be communicated to the parties it effects clearly. (Kubasek 2015). In this case, the contract was not communicated at all to the owners of Muscadine grapes and it was also not
Wally, business owner of Windy City Watches is located in downtown Chicago, IL. Business is booming and Wally needs to buy a large quantity of Rolek watches which sell for $50 apiece. He calls Randy Rolek, the wholesaler located in Milwaukee WI. They discuss terms on the phone for a while before coming to an agreement in which Wally offers to buy 100 watches for $25 each. Randy sends over an order form in which Wally states that he is agreeing to purchase watches from Randy for $25 each, but does not include the quantity in which he will buy. Randy sends 50 watches the following week with a note included stating that he has sent 50 watches and will send the other remaining 50 watches within a few days but includes the bill for the full
The O. J. Simpson double murder case, also titled “People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a trial in which James O.J Simpson, a former National Football League player was convicted at the Los Angeles County Superior Court of two murder offenses on June 12, 1994. He was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, a restaurant waiter at Mezzaluna. The trial spans for a period of eight months. The opening statements were read on January 23, 1995, whereas the verdict, which left Simpson a free man, was declared on October 3, 1995. “The Trial of The Century,” as it is commonly known, has been described as the most publicized trial in history. However, before Simpson could be arrested and prosecuted, they had to go through an investigation process with the implementation of some techniques used by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as this essay illustrates.
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
This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the
The grapes became a hot commodity and over six months, he paid for orders and delivery has been prompt, and no issues about payments even though they can be 15 to 30 days late. During one of the deliveries, Marshall made my son signed a contract that includes a guaranteed price schedule consistent with what he had been paying. Marshall told him that it was “just a formality” to guarantee a continuing business relationship. The signing of that contract established a formal business agreement between the two companies.
He may also feel that the contact was breached and he is owed restitution. Marshall in this disagreement should first attempt to resolve this dispute without pursuing any legal action. He could use his faith and biblical teachings, to show errors of ways. He could argue the contract unenforceable due to fraud and inept execution, if he must rely on legal relief. The business relationship is best suited to be served also. The common law duty is to always act in good faith. Good faith performance is an implied agreement in nearly every contract in American common law jurisdictions (Burton, 1980). In the contract in question the promise was made, upholding an expectation of receiving the terms agreed upon in the contract. The issue is to act in good faith or to enforce the law. Marshall can secure not only supply, price, but also control of the benefits earned by his supplier. From a legal aspect, Marshall has acted in bad faith. A minor capacity to sign a contract is the bad faith act on Marshall’s part.
The four elements of a valid contract are offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration and competent parties. The contract must cover a legal purpose or objective as well (Binder, 2012). The objective theory of contracts holds that contract formation is dependent on what is communicated, rather than what is thought by one of the parties (Barnes, 2008).
would give 100 £. The company then deposited 1,000 £ in a bank to show
After Francis B. Palmer murder, the main question that was posed by the court is "should a murderer inherit"? There was a disagreement between the judges on how the statute of wills should be applied and interpreted. As a result, Judge Gray made some surprisingly strong arguments that the court is "bound by the rigid rules of law", therefore, Elmer should not be denied his inheritance. Unlike the dissenting judge, Judge Earl claims that no one should take advantage of his own unlawful actions. Due to these different perspectives, I will first analyse both judge's decision. Secondly, I will make a claim that Judge Earl's decision was inconsistent and invalidates the written statutory law, therefore, the dissenting judges make a stronger argument. Finally, I will use the Legal Positivism Theory to challenge Judge Earl's Natural Law Theory to support my position.
Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.