Contractual Agreements : The Objective Theory Of Contract

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

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

The basis on contractual obligation is a promise, a promise from both parties to perform a duty, or duties in reliance on that promise. This paper will take the stance that Thomas Davitt takes, stating that though mutual assent and consideration are important to a contract, those factors are not the essence of a contract. There is a moral obligation to fulfill a contract, one that is much more than simply words written on paper.

In my opinion, the Affordable Care Act does not signal a shift in health policy and law from the free market approach and back to the social contract era. As the text states, the motive behind the social contract perspective was because “the belief that complete physician autonomy over the delivery and financing of health care is potentially dangerous in terms of patient care and health care,” and that “public policy and law can and sometimes should enforce a “social contract” at the expense of physician control. (Teitelbaum and Wilensky, 2017, p. 6.) In addition, the social contract era introduced Medicare and Medicaid by the federal and state governments.

Using the Social Contract Theory to argue against increased regulation of guns, Timmons of Disputed Moral Issues (p.29) defines the Social Contract Theory as, “An action is morally right if and only if (and because) it is permitted by a set of moral principles that hypothetical agents would agree to under conditions that are ideal for choosing moral principles (the precise characteristics of the hypothetical agents and ideal conditions to be spelled out)”. As I attempted to analyze the social contract theory, I translated this theory as meaning in some circumstances gun usage can be morally justified and is thereby permitted for the safety and lives of the innocent. For example, if an armed or unarmed subject was to enter a home posing a threat towards the homeowner, the homeowner has the right to bear arms to protect oneself as well as the family’s life.

'The social contract is not worth the paper it 's not written on. ' Can social contract theory adequately explain why we should obey the law?

When interpreting a contract, the literal approach is often taken to determine what was meant by the contract. The literal approach to contract interpretation means that when looking over a contract, words are assigned their ordinary meaning. Words are interpreted literally, as they ordinarily would be, regardless of the presumed context. However, giving words their ordinary meaning without adjusting for the context of the situation may cause problems. An example would be when a business places a clause in a contract proclaiming that any fees or costs associated with, say, the hourly cost of renting equipment, are subject to change without notice. This contract would cause problems should the fees suddenly be raised by an exorbitant amount because the literal approach would side with the business as they literally state that they could alter their fees at any time without any notice, and they reserve the right to change prices as they see fit. If, in the example given previously, the business hiked rental fees from $5,000 to $50,000 per year, the literal approach could be taken and be fully justifiable but could be problematic. Clearly, a reasonable person would see that a tenfold increase is completely unreasonable, but the literal approach would defend this. Therefore, it would be important to look at the other three forms of contractual interpretation to decide this matter.

1) How might the situation described in the above video have been avoided under contractualism? (demonstrate understanding of difference between state-sanctioned marriage and contractualism

It is apposite at this juncture to define what social contract connotes. Social contract is the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

Being in a state of nature allows complete privacy but lacks any sense of security. An individual is allowed to protect there belongs by any means they find necessary, but so can anyone else. An important reason why individuals agree to enter a social contract is for the protection from other individuals. However, when you agree to allow the government to provide protection an individual must also agree to give up two important liberties: the ability to use whatever force an individual finds appropriate to feel safe and the ability to have complete privacy. Under Locke’s point of view, when being in a social contract you still have a right to self defense however, protect for the society should be handled by the government.

Contracts are in every aspect of life. From buying a car to being employed, contracts govern all areas of life. By definition, a contract is “an agreement creating obligations enforceable by law” (Cornell University Law School). “A contract in its most basic definition is nothing more than a legally enforceable promise” (National Paralegal College). That means that any contract that is made legally, which will be discussed later, will hold up in a court of law. The two different parties that join together to form an agreement have to do their part of the contract as it is stated within. Contract law is in place to assure that this happens in the time frame agreed upon while making the contract. “Contracts that were mutually entered into between parties with the capacity to contract are binding obligations and may not be set aside due to the caprice of one party or the other unless a statute provides to the contrary” (Burton).

The purpose of this case studies is to identify whether business should continue as followed with Mr. Marshall. Or deciding to stop doing business with Mr. Marshall, what legal cause of action might he bring against Joan’s company, what damages or remedies might he seek, and what legal defenses might Joan’s company be faced with. Also, how will this affect Mr. Marshall once Joan stops doing business with him, the potential impact on Mr. Marshall’s continued exploration of his faith. Understanding biblical options that were available for resolving the disputes with Mr. Marshall. Joan may need to know what laws are in place to protect her company. Joan’s options for continuing doing business with Mr.

Voluntary exchange is of the utmost importance in being able to transfer resources from less to more valuable uses and to the hands of those that value them the most. This process of exchange does not face many obstacles when the parties to a transaction can perform their obligations in a simultaneous manner. In today’s world, most transfers of resources occur through contracts and require agreements as to how, where, and at what price the transfer will occur at some time in the future. This is why protection of contract rights is essential.

1) The court viewed the situation as if a reasonable individual would consider the offer as valid. Zehmer’s outward expressions and words constituted a genuine offer to sell. The outwardly demonstrated intent is all the court looks at, not the secret and inward thought of the defendant. A contract cannot be done in passing or when absent-minded. Both parts have to come to mutual understanding and agreement (Melvin, 2011). Lucy demonstrated her intent by ensuring that details were in the contract (illustrated by several drafts that were written), and by ensuring both husband and wife signed the contract (Lucy v. Zehmer-Case Brief Summary, 2015).

Contract theory has been a part of our civilization from the beginning of time. Although, it may not have been called contract theory until Thomas Hobbes came about during the 1600s. Contract theory is based on the concept of people as individual beings. Such individual beings are allowed rights that cannot be taken away from them, and they have freedom equal to everyone else. Hobbes believed that only a strong state could offer this contract theory. He came up with a solution which he named “leviathan.” Leviathan would be a strong central state in which people would have to recognize that it was in their best interest to enter into a personal contract, exchanging certain personal rights and power for order and safety.