Muscadine Grape Farm Case Study

A contract is defined as, “a legally enforceable exchange of promises or an exchange of a promise for an act that assures that parties to the agreement that their promises will be enforceable (Kubasek 2015).” Contracts are essential for businesses to conduct business with one another. Before delving too far into the Muscadine grape case, it is also important to note that a sale is the, “passing of title to goods from buyer to seller for a price (Kubasek 2015)” and that a good is considered, “tangible personal property (Kubasek 2015).” Muscadine grapes and their by-products are the goods in question. When considering any legal case it is important to first consider the facts and the issues that are being considered.

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

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.

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 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.

The shopping center that I chose to do was Grapevine Mills mall. The shopping mall is an outlet that was established in 1997, it is also one of the largest indoor shopping mall that is owned by Simon Property Group. The indoor shopping mall has 180 stores, which is over 1.6 million sq. ft., and it includes shopping, entertainment and restaurants (Grapevine Mills Mall, n.d.). A few stores that are featured inside the mall are Charlotte Russe, Styles for Less, Papaya, Forever 21, H&M, Ross Dress for Less, Neiman Marcus Last Call, Nike Factory, Saks Fifth Avenue, Under Armors, Ann Taylor, Victoria Secret’s, Coach Factory, Claire’s, Michael Kors, Express, Buckle. Adidas, Hot Topic. Levis Outlet and many other retail stores (Grapevine Mills, 2006.).

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.

In the Old Testament, Genesis 3 discusses the fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve. God instructed Adam, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.” Adam relays this divine command to Eve, who ponders the restriction on the tree when a serpent tempts her into eating from the forbidden tree. The serpent jumbles God’s words and makes Eve question what God was saying. Eve is fascinated when the serpent mentions becoming a God and knowing good and evil. In disobeying God’s law, Adam and Eve are sent out of the Garden of Eden, “to till the ground from which he was taken.” Along with being cast, God curses enmity between Adam, Eve, and the serpent. This paper aims to present a more thorough examination of three critical terms in Genesis 3 from the Old Testament: serpent, know, and enmity. The words and symbolism may sometimes mislead individuals to a different understanding of what is trying being conveyed. Further analysis is needed to help better illuminate the meaning of these phrases.