The Art Of The Deal Analysis

Throughout Donald's life success was not easy for him or his businesses. The Trump organization revealed that it was 5$ billion in debt in 1990, with as much as 1$ billion spent by Donald Personally. With all the casinos, hotels, and cars Trump had to create a bailout system that would allow him to take out two to three mortgages on most of properties. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy four times. Although he was in the hole, he was able to get himself out and with that I think that he wouldn't have been able to make any crucial business decisions without the help of many bankers and lawyers but also the use of a free enterprise system.

Trump’s problem is not so much what he’s done, but how he’s done it. I decided at the start that I wanted to profile him by describing his deals — not his lifestyle or his personality. After getting to know him, I realized that his deals are his life. He once told me: “I won’t make a deal just to make a profit. It has to have flair.” Another Manhattan developer said it differently: “Trump won’t do a deal unless there’s something extra — a kind of moral larceny — in it. He’s not satisfied with a profit. He has to take something more. Otherwise, there’s no thrill.”

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.

Trump may be known for his wealth but many aspects has shown that he is definitely bad in business. As president, being good in business is one of the key aspects to succeed, because you have to handle the whole nation’s financial matters. Trump boasted that he earned his own money, but he isn’t like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, who are self-made billionaires who were innovators in their fields. Instead, Trump’s wealth is inherited from his father. Almost all his best-known successes are deducible to family ties or money given to him by his

Donald Trump is a very successful business man that is just trying his hand in politics this election. He was born in Queens, New York on the fourteenth of June in 1946 and later graduated business school at the Warton School of Finance. Other than the acting chairman and president of his own organization, Trump has become a successful author of over 15 bestselling books including “The Art of the Deal.” He is also an Emmy nominee for his show “The Apprentice” which coined the phrase “you’re fired!”(“About Donald J. Trump”). Though he may not have much governing experience, he sure has gotten a lot

Epstein chooses his words very precisely to convey his agenda in the article. His use of diction is extremely evident when describing the president. The most obvious use of diction is when he refers to Trump as a plutocrat. By referring to him as such, and not as a businessman or a politician, Epstein is able to contrive a more negative view on trump. To a further extent, the author couples hubris with the word to double down on the negative diction. He states, “President Trump’s first weeks in office demonstrate the hubris of the plutocrat.” Through this diction, Epstein is able to paint Trump as a villain whose money and pride will be the downfall of the country. The author finishes his article with diction that constructs a lasting image, as well as gives one last little push of the

Throughout the passage, Epstein presents several rhetorical questions to further shed light on the topic at hand. Towards the beginning of the article, Epstein proposes the question, “The guy’s a multi billionaire, so why shouldn't he know about health care, immigration, life in the inner cities?” Epstein includes this line to help inform his audience that regardless of the copious amount of money that Trump has, it does not directly correlate to having knowledge on certain issues that are dealt with in the government. Epstein also talks about the negative ways one often earns money and how it does not reflect well on them as a person. He mentions his dad and the questions he asks him. He asks, “How the success was achieved and who suffered because of it?” Epstein asks these question to highlight the fact

Negotiations are something that everyone experiences and does at some level. Even if informal, people negotiate and barter using what they have to offer to get what they want all of the time. However, there are times in life where the negotiations are much more serious and the stakes a lot higher. Whether official or unofficial, there are negotiation tactics and conditions that should be watched out for because they are a sign of potential problems.

Trump’s second strong point was when he pointed out was that he intends to reduce tax on small companies with the intent to encourage more people to form small businesses. Most people in the United States do not own large companies, however, there are almost certainty a good amount of people who have ideas for their own business. Trump’s proposition of low taxes on small business made these peoples dreams more realistic, conjuring hope for a future under a Trump administration. I chose this as Trump’s second strong point because this generation of hope is monumental because as Trump points out throughout the debate, he believes that despite Secretary Clinton having been in politics many years, not much has been done for small businesses. Although not entirely true, this proposition made the audience feel that trump was the middle classes candidate in the business

In the President Inaugural address it states, “Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.” This is significant

Lillard, Monique C., Fifty Jurisdictions in Search of a Standard: The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Employment Context, 57 Mo. L. Rev. (1992)

The four elements of a valid contract are offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration and competent parties. The contract must cover a legal purpose or objective as well (Binder, 2012). The objective theory of contracts holds that contract formation is dependent on what is communicated, rather than what is thought by one of the parties (Barnes, 2008).

The topic for my real world negotiation is to come to an agreement with my supervisor for a promotion as well as an increased salary. I currently work as a student assistant at the student services Planning, Enrollment Management, and Student Affairs (PEMSA) department. My goal is to increase my hourly pay from $10.15 to $12.70, a 25% increase. Having worked in this department for three years, I have taken on tasks not part of my job description such as processing return mail, data entry, and supervision.

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

His focused has shift from being money orientated to time orientated. Believing that business is merely a game now, it is not about the profits, yet his actions to make money speak otherwise.