Sample Resume : Business Law

The law of contract requires that there must also be evidence of an intention to create legal relations between the parties. However it is usually held that the decision is against the intention for an agreement domestic in nature to be legally binding, such as in the case of Cohen v Cohen where an agreement between family members that may be morally binding will not necessarily create a lawfully binding contract. However there are exceptions to this. When both parties show an intention to enter a legally binding arrangement and it would be unreasonable for one party to revoke their decision, the arrangement holds evidence of a possible contract.

An offeror will have made an offer where it appears to a reasonable person in the position of the offeree that an offer was intended.

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

Offer- This is defined as a clear manifestation of willingness to enter an agreement made by another person with full understanding that their assent to the bargain is an invitation and is concluded.

Even the contracts are expressly agreed to by the parties, those terms need to be inter-preted and the court must ascertain the terms and meaning of the parties to the con-tract. According to the UCC, the court would look to the relevant course of perfor-mance, course of dealing and usage of trade to determine the meaning of the words of agreement.

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

Every contract is based on the concept of agreement. A contract is defined as a legal agreement consisting of exchange of promises which is recognized by law as giving rise to enforceable rights and obligations. The test of agreement is used to ensure whether or not there is a contract between the parties. Whereas the objective test ensures certainty, the same cannot be said about the subjective test of agreement. The objective test of agreement is when the court decides whether there is contract based on the outward appearance of what constitutes the contract. However the subjective test of agreement involves trying to establish whether there was a “meeting of minds” when the contract was made. That is, to try to figure out the mental state of mind of the parties involved during the time the contract was made.

If the contract has been formally written and signed by the parties, there is an assumption that all the terms of the agreement are contained in the written document

Contracts can be defined through promises between parties that are enforceable through law. We know that both parties agreed verbally, an oral agreement was made to hold the car for one day with a hundred-dollar deposit and Stan agreed to the terms that the deposit was refundable. Contracts can be in in two form which are written or oral. Based on the elements of contracts, many fundamentals factors are considered mandatory to form a contract that is binding on parties and are primarily outlined through the following:

for it to qualify as a proper contract in the eyes of the law: offer

The relevant rules are every simple contract must be supported by consideration, a promise to fulfil the terms of a contract is not always good consideration, and the rule that an agreement that is commercial in character can amount to a binding contract

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 order for a contract to be formed, there are various requirements. These are offer, acceptance, consideration, and the intention to create legal relations. A contract may also be terminated.

Contractual agreement has always been viewed in terms of offer and acceptance. The universal principle to contract law has always been parties may get into an agreement in whichever way they deem fit and they are subject to certain terms as they choose. As far as legal requirements vital to their formation are binding contracts may be formed. Moreover a binding agreement may be manifested in terms of writing or in verbal form.

A contract is deemed formed and valid in the eyes of the law when all necessary elements for its formation are proven to exist by producing admissible evidence with respect to their existence. In this regard, the primary elements required under law to establish the existence of a contract are proposal, acceptance, intention to create a legal relationship, consideration, capacity, certainty and legality. If one of this elements does not exist, then it would be doubtful whether the transaction concerned is contractual in nature. According to the