Precision Concepts Corp v. General Employment and Triad Personnel Services

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

The signing of the $5,000 deposit Check by both parties and the intent of sale evidenced by Sun Valley’s preparation and delivery of closing documents to Hoffman is a clear sign that the deal would have been closed. But if we were to base our argument on intent alone, then we would not be considering the being of the memorandum agreement in the first place.

The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

There were factors that had to be considered before a summary judgement becomes appropriate. “A genuine dispute of material fact is

that the jury’s decision was inequitable or out-of-line with Mississippi policy governing contract disputes and unjust enrichment.

The lawsuit is question was in regards to three different complains. Alexander stated that how he was terminated breached the employment contract with Young, the termination went against some retirement benefits implied by the employment contract with Young, and was considered age discrimination under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B, sec. 1.

Whether the circuit court erred in considering parol evidence to determine whether the B108 document was a contract.

The Petitioners claim that, since it included offer and acceptance, supported by consideration, contained definite terms and was signed by all

6. Assuming, arguendo, that this e-mail does constitute an agreement, what consideration supports this agreement?

In an agreement separate from the purchase contract, Vassilkovska promised to arbitrate any claim against Woodfield instead of suing in court. Woodfield promised to arbitrate claims against Vassilkovska as well, but excluded several different types of claims from the agreement. Woodfield did not consider the promise of the agreement. The court deemed that was unfair. The Arbitration Agreement does not promise that Woodfield would have to submit to arbitration. The agreement forces Vassilkovska to arbitrate any claims she may have against Woodfield. If Woodfield would have agreed to arbitrate that would

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in the recent case of Baldwin & Anor v Icon Energy Ltd & Anor [2015] QSC 12, had to give consideration as to whether the ‘ agreement to negotiate’ is legally binding on the parties. The solicitors for the defendants ‘Icon Energy Ltd’ and their wholly owned subsidiary ‘Jakabar PTY LTD’ were Hopgood Ganim. The solicitor for ‘Ronald Baldwin’ and ‘Souther Fairway Investments PTY LTD’ was Clayton Utz.

12/2/15 CM closed case. CM has called and spoke to Brian Reid on several occasions and mailed memos. Mr. Reid has not provided CM with the signed financial forms.

Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions

In the article “Consideration - in Acceptance of Contract”， this support Robert’s (2015) evidence that if an act is performed then a subsequent promise to pay by reference to that act is not enforceable as the consideration was past. Other that, he also noted that if there was an implication; the past promise to pay is enforceable.