Contracts : Written Vs. Oral

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

-The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant

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 the Hoffman Vs. Sun Valley Company case, where the Sun Valley Company won, despite there being an oral agreement. The prerequisite memorandum form for the sale of the Rudd Mountain property, was not signed to fully close the deal. Thus, the oral agreement was declared void by failure to comply with the statute of frauds.

The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.

Explain why it is important to have an intention to create legal relations when making a contract and why is consideration of the parties to the agreement necessary-:

In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract.  As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

She may have lost a substantial amount of money, but I would have to agree with the court’s decision. There was not a signed contract between the two parties. This made whatever agreement between Sawyer and Mills null and unenforceable. It seems Mills understood this, and deliberately chose to not sign a contact as to make him more money.

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

Pat was very frustrated because she wanted to purchase a home but lacked the funds or credit to do so even though Pat was expecting shortly to receive a one-half million dollar final installment payment for some land she sold several years earlier. Dan knew that Pat was very interested in purchasing a home and approached Pat with a proposal to assist Pat in buying a home. Dan told Pat that he would help Pat with the financing. After finding the home she wanted to buy for $250,000, Dan and Pat orally agreed that Dan would purchase the home and "when you come up with the money, I (Dan) will sell it to you (Pat) for $250,000 plus a fair commission to be determined."

There were a total of two agreements between the plaintiffs and defendants. The first one was a ‘Memorandum Of Understanding’ (MOU). This was between the plaintiff company

Critiquely speaking, this case was not that bad. Robin Thicke payed less than half of what was orginally declared. I believe that the people

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions