JP Morgan Chase

1658 Words7 Pages
JP Morgan Chase 1.Discuss how administrative agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) take action in order to be effective in preventing high-risk gambles in securities / banking, a foundation of the economy. 2. Determine the elements of a valid contract, and discuss how consumers and banks each have a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the banking relationship. 3. Compare and contrast the differences between intentional and negligent tort actions 4. Discuss the tort action of “Interference with Contractual Relations and Participating in a Breach of Fiduciary duty” and, if the bank you’ve chosen were to behave as…show more content…
The intention to create legal relations is presumed, so the contract doesn 't have to expressly state that you understand and intend legal consequences to follow. If the parties to a contract decide not to be legally bound, this must be clearly stated in the contract for it not to be legally enforceable. The last element is consideration. In order for a contract to be binding it must be supported by valuable consideration. That is to say, one party promises to do something in return for a promise from the other party to provide a benefit of value (the consideration) Consideration is what each party gives to the other as the agreed price for the other 's promises. Usually the consideration is the payment of money but it need not be; it can be anything of value including the promise not to do something, or to refrain from exercising some right. 3. When someone intentionally injuries a person or interferes with a person’s property, an intentional tort has been committed. An intentional tort differs from an unintentional tort in that the perpetrator of an intentional tort intends to bring about a specific result or consequence. When we hear the word assault, we tend to think of a harmful physical act. In tort law, however, the plaintiff simply has to prove that the defendant threatened harm; the plaintiff believed the threat was genuine, and the defendant could have carried out the threat. Assault is often followed by battery, the intentional
Open Document