Contracts assignment 4 Essay

Starting from the beginning, the original post the sale, on November 1, Dr. Peters wanted to sell 850 tubes of toothpaste. In the sale ad it states "Write me if wanting to accept". Therefore, Sam did in fact put a check in the mail the same day, November 1. This is considered to be a part of the mailbox rule in which "an acceptance sent via the postal system or by courier is effective when sent" ((Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 127). Therefore, the acceptance of the sale is a contract between Sam and Dr. Peters. However, a written contract should have followed; as it states in the Statutes of Fraud that in order to be legally binding, sales dealing with "personal property of $500 or more" must "be in writing to be legally enforceable" (Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 201). The two parties have entered into a valid and express contract.

The clerical order cannot be used in the court of law as a reasonable defence. Brenda acted legally, as he contract can only be looked at, in an “objective rather than subjective” (McKendrick,2015, p17) manner. Therefore, Brenda can only act upon the basis of what the letter says and that is 1000 gnomes. . Additionally, to what has already been said, Slade LJ in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ,in Centrovincial Estates plc v. Merchant Investors Assurance Co. Ltd, explained that one cannot “reasonably” have known the error when accepting the order. (Slade, LJ., 1983)

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer, after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods, indicates to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take them in spite of their nonconformity. In this case B.P. kept the delivered goods, used them as the mall's decorations and, at most, wanted a lower price because of their alleged nonconformity. Therefore, B.P. officially accepted the goods according to the UCC. Additionally, once the goods are accepted, the buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted. B.P. must pay the last two installments to Lafer Enterprises for the decorations whether they approve of the quality or not. B.P. definitely accepted the

The Grape producer which was my wife’s Sunday school teacher and I entered a professional business relationship after I revealed to him that I was interested in expanding and growing my business by adding new product lines. Subsequently, he introduced me to the Muscadine products that his family produced, resulting with me sampling the products and ultimately because of the product line success, I increased shipments and heavily promoted the items with marketing and advertising. Moreover, because of the Grape Producer’s ability to supply me with all the product I needed when I needed it, and at the consistent prices over the last 6 months I decided to formalize our implied contract in which both merchants provided product for payment without a formal written contract (Kubasek et al., 2016). Nonetheless, because of the trust for the Grape Producer’s outstanding record of integrity through actions and words reveals “let your yes be yes or no be no; and anything more than that comes

Mr. Washington made a claim that the disclaimer of any consequential damages located in the Purchase Order Acknowledgement is not part of the contract between Burger and Pine. A contract was made because Burger made an offer to Pines and then Pines accepted the offer. Section 2-207 of the Gould Commercial Code (GCC) says that a written confirmation made in a reasonable amount of time is an acceptance, even if additional terms or different terms than those offered or agreed upon are stated (Efrat, 2009, Page 14). An acceptance can be confirmed because Pines accepted Burgers contract by responding with a Purchase Order Acknowledgement. Pines also fulfilled the reasonable time requirement by sending their Purchase Order Acknowledgment in 5 days.

The contract is a legally-enforceable promise or a set of promises. The four elements of the contract are 1) the agreement, 2) the consideration, 3) contractual capability, and 4) lawful object (Cheeseman, 2015, p. 188). These elements are required to exist for a contract between Sam and the chain store to be valid. The first element of the contract is the agreement which is a combination of the offer and an acceptance which both need to exist. The agreement between Sam and the chain store exists because Sam had verbally agreed to send 1,000 units to the chain store, as per conversation with the store manager. The second element of the valid contract is the consideration which could exist if both parties, Sam and the chain store, had agreed

Katlyn advised a check of her register revealed she had accepted another counterfeit bill with identical markings. She advised the bill was taken between 1800 hours and 1830 hours. She was sure of the time frame because her register had been emptied at approximately 1800 hours. Katlyn provided me with the counterfeit bill from the register, which was placed into evidence at PRPD. Katlyn provided me with a written statement, which was later attached to this

Analysis: In this case, the contract between Brent and Sven is unenforceable. The agreement between Sven and Brent involved the sale of 8 used air conditioner for $200, totaling to $1,600. Hence it falls within the Statute of Fraud, because it was a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more. Furthermore, since the agreement was oral, the contract does not satisfy the Statute of Frauds and it is unenforceable.

Part number of Televisions listed on Vendor Invoice does not match Purchase Requisition and Receiving Report. Is only off by one letter and the price matches that of the item ordered and received in the Master Price list. Verified with Thomas that this is a typo on the Vendor’s part. No notation of discrepancy was made upon client’s review of Vendor Invoice.

24. Brizon, a toy company enters into a five-year agreement with Toys Paradise (TP), a toy Shopee. The agreement states that Brizon is to provide all the toys required by the distinguished shop at a fixed rate. During the first 3 years of the contract, Brizon uses its excess capacity to meet-up with the anticipated requirements and delivers between 1.25-1.5 million toys to TP. However, in the 4th year of the agreement TP wants Brizon to deliver approximately twice as much toy, so that the toys can be used at other outlets owned by TP. In such a case:

Part 2 What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties objective intent to contract? The written confirmation through email from Big Time Toymaker confirms that a distribution contract was entered into via oral agreement prior to any specified deadline. Big Time Toymaker also sent, by fax, a request for a draft of distribution agreement, to which Chou immediately responded. These factors would weigh heavily against any claim that there was no contract, neither implied nor executed. One could argue that the limitations of time elapsed during discussions. While this might be argued convincingly, the email 3 days prior to the termination date clearly implies that Big Time Toymaker was serious in their intent. To deny that there was an oral agreement would be falsifying the record.

All records of the original purchase will be voided, and Noah will get his 1 purchase back. The money will be given to Randall Sevcik and can be used for whatever purchases. He is not obliged to give back his one purchase.

Shipment of goods an order may be construed as acceptance of a contract, as stated in UCC 2-206. However, under UCC 2-606 (1)(a) this implied acceptance is only pertinent to conforming goods. If upon inspection within reasonable time, the goods are determined to be non-conforming, there is no acceptance. Acceptance is solely intended to be for goods that adequately meet the terms of a contract. In this case, a waterski that breaks down almost immediately is not an example of a conforming good. Andy wanting his money back is signaling to the shop that he will not accept this non-conforming good as completion of their contract.

Mr Wu made Mr Williams an offer on the 3rd Jan 08, open until the 30th of August. He then wrote to Mr Williams on the 30th March 08 to revoke this offer. However, under article 16 of the CISG, as his offer stipulated a fixed time for acceptance, it was irrevocable, and he could not revoke it. However there is no evidence that Mr Williams accepted this offer, so it is of no real concern to Mr Wu’s current legal woes.

Although Gabe feels the contract is bound and the verbal agreement is legitimate, it could be argued, that as the contract had been signed off prior to the promise. Crane’s original contract is to be upheld