Muscadine Grape Farm Case Study

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

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).

The case is introduced in late 1998 with Ron McManisat a crossroads of sorts regarding his family owned business. Currently, McManisenjoys moderate success as a mid-sized, Central Valley grower of grapes who sells his product to valley based wineries. His particular plot of land affords the added benefit of being able to produce high quality grapes in an area that is largely thought to produce grapes found in cheaper wines. In an effort to rid himself of this stigma and strategically position his company for growth, McManishired consultants to present options for expanding his current operations. The case closes with a presentation of various options with

The intent of this mediation memo is to explain the breach of contract by the Muscadine grape producer, with whom l had entered into an agreement with to supply Muscadine grapes for my business. The agreement was supposed to account for a fixed price schedule, and I will delve into the facts of the case to clarify the breach of contract. I will explain the legal issues of the contract breach, request possible restitution, and appeal to conditions under which we can arrange a settlement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein set forth and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the parties agree as follows:

A bargain that is in good faith should be directed towards entering into an agreement. Any party that introduces unrealistic conditions is said not to be in good faith. The negotiations between the company and the union did not result in an agreement, even after eighteen meetings were held in a time frame of eleven months. The company is to blame for the failure to enter into an agreement due to the introduction of conditions that were unfavorable to the union. An agreement can only occur when the parties involved are ready to compromise. The company was not ready to compromise, thus making it right to conclude that it was not in good faith.

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.

The movie utilized for this assignment was What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. This movie explored the life of the Grape family consisting of Gilbert, Ellen, Arnie, Bonnie and Amy. (Hallström, Blomquist, Matalon, Ohlsson, Teper 1993). The movie reveals the struggles that the family face while raising Arnie who had a chronic mental illness (Hallström et al., 1993). This paper will discuss the priority concerns and corresponding interventions that are pertinent for the Grape family based on thorough use of the Calgary family assessment model. The focus of this papers assessment on the family will be on the functional aspect; however the structural and developmental aspects have been assessed.

Ceja Vineyards have many challenges. Their first challenge would be with their marketing plan. Currently, Ceja has a very out to date marketing plan which consists of selling their product through exclusive stores and boutiques. It also does not help that Ceja Vineyards do not operate in every state of the United States of America which in turn causes less knowledge about the company. More knowledge leads to a higher possibility of someone purchasing their product. Another challenge for Ceja Vineyards would be with their distribution channel for their Hispanic consumers. In order to target the Hispanic community, the company should reach out to larger distributors as most of the Hispanic consumers currently don’t live in the US. Ceja Vineyards

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties agree as follows:

Owning a business is very rewarding, however, it comes with many challenges as well. There are many torts and laws a business owner should be aware of in order to make sure they are abiding by the laws set forth before them. The characters have found themselves in a wide variety of situations that must be dealt with and handled accordingly.

In Privy Council decision Attorney-General of Belize v Belize Telecom (Belize thereafter), Lord Hoffmann in delivering the leading judgment, assimilated the implication of term and contractual interpretation resulting in the well-known traditional tests: “business efficacy” and “officious bystander” merely as auxiliary role in discovering the the objective intention of the contract. Even though the Belize test has long been accepted by the English and the New Zealand courts, Singapore court seems to have reservations. A great deal of debate surrounds the issue as to the roles of the Belize test to be afforded to two

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties agree as follows:

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

Conceptually, reasonable expectations of honest men and sanctity of contract are not in conflict. Indeed, they often point to the same direction – it is the reasonable expectation of an honest man that an agreement should be executed. Although it is observed that the two themes usually work side by side, this essay argues that in regards to the rules of acceptance of unilateral contracts, the English courts place more emphasis on reasonable expectations when making decisions.