Reviewing The Contract With Marshall

1088 Words5 Pages
In examining the contract with Marshall there are a number of factors to consider. I would have to examine all of the professional, legal, and spiritual implications of deciding to part ways with doing business with his store. Marshall was an intricate part of getting the grapes initial recognition and the impending financial success may not have been possible without his willingness to promote the grapes in his store. Without taking the proper steps to rectify this situation in a peaceful manner, I might experience a backlash depending on Marshall’s potential decision to bring this issue before the court of public opinion. The interest in my products might decrease depending on how he chose to spin his story regarding our fallout…show more content…
Investopedia states: An implied contract is an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken. This is a contract assumed to have been drawn. In this case, there is no written record nor any actual verbal agreement. (Investopedia, 2010) Under these terms, I would have to determine what a fair interpretation of our implied contract would be and to what extent Marshall should be compensated under those terms. I am under no legal obligation to continue to provide goods and services and would instead insist on using a mutually agreed upon mediator to hash out a possible financial settlement to compensate Marshall for his promotion of the product and find out whether or not the new company that would purchase my product would be willing to offer Marshall a set rate with their acquisition as a part of the sale. Marshall’s Legal Defense In Marshall’s defense I would have to be prepared that he could use Promissory Estoppel as a legal defense should our case be brought before a judge. If we are unwilling to come to an agreement the judge might enact this particular method to award damages to Marshall based of our implied contract in good faith. In the Seattle University Law Review it states: The function of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is, under our view, defensive in that it estops a promisor
Open Document