The Court Looks At If A Reasonable Individual

Mr. Potbelly and Mr. Slim Jim are two competent people who voluntarily entered into an agreement for the purchases of the pottery and the home. Mr. Potbelly presented Mr. Slim Jim with the original offers and Mr. Slim Jim counter counter-offered within reason of the asking price. The conversation had between Mr. Potbelly and the other individual should not be grounds for him

_Mary wants to sell her house for $215.000; she didn't have any proposition until this young couple's offer ($170.000). Mary told to her agent that this price is out of the ZOPA, but she is ready to negotiation._

To begin with, this essay intend to talk about some legal definitions, since what REASONABLE exactly doesn’t possess the same meaning under different circumstances. Though, not all of these definitions would be mentioned in the following content of this essay.

3. Third Possible Offer. Peters response to Don of "OK, that sounds great. I just need to inform my sister first before I can act on this. This decision affects her too. Can I let you know for sure tomorrow?" does not contain the required promissory language required to show intent to form a contract. He is simply relaying that he is taking Dons invitation for an offer under consideration and must communicate with his sister prior to a decision being made.

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

           For arguments sake, even if the email constituted an agreement and both parties responded, there are many factors that support the defense.    The main argument could be that there were no follow up questions regarding what had been documented in the email.  Chou offered after the email was sent out to draft and memorializes the agreement, which he later faxed before the 90-day deadline.  We live in a digital environment where electronic signatures are now valid forms of authorization and agreements. Therefore, not only is the digital responses considered valid, but money exchanging hands between both parties further substantiates the agreement and understanding between mutual parties.

35-1Discuss fully whether any of the following actions would constitute a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended.

She signed the contract and addends and signed most of the signature lines, but not all of them and crossed off certain provisions she did not agree with. After not hearing from Ms. Norkunas for a week or so, the buyers were notified that she was taking her property off the market. The buyers immediately sued the seller for performance of the letter of intent she signed, which they felt entitled them to the property. During the discovery process, they found out she not only crossed out provision which they would have obliged to, but the fact that she signed the contract; they then sough performance for the contact.

A contract is an agreement that creates obligations that are enforceable by the law. A contract can either be written or spoken. There are elements to a contract that make it valid and binding. 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. As to whether there was an offer in this case, yes there is an offer. When the salesman offered the buyers time for a test drive and they finally chose and agreed to buy the blue car it was a clear offer.

The U.S. Constitution provides equal protection to all citizens, regardless of race, color, or state of residence. As such, cases of Fourth Amendment violations should yield consistent verdicts across jurisdictions. The objective reasonableness standard adopted in Heien, however, fails to ensure uniform application of the Forth Amendment. In contrast, a categorical exclusion of evidence obtained through a mistake of law would have ensured equal application of the law and excluded inconsistency in criminal verdicts.

Pat was very frustrated because she wanted to purchase a home but lacked the funds or credit to do so even though Pat was expecting shortly to receive a one-half million dollar final installment payment for some land she sold several years earlier. Dan knew that Pat was very interested in purchasing a home and approached Pat with a proposal to assist Pat in buying a home. Dan told Pat that he would help Pat with the financing. After finding the home she wanted to buy for $250,000, Dan and Pat orally agreed that Dan would purchase the home and "when you come up with the money, I (Dan) will sell it to you (Pat) for $250,000 plus a fair commission to be determined."

In our government today we have due process of law. Due process of law simply means that we have protection against a chance deprivation of life, liberty or property. Within the due process law, if you are to be accused of something it has to be under fair and reasonable circumstances. If we are ever to be arrested of something, under due process it commands that we are taken to court and showed a cause. It is very important that we have due process in the law for the people of the United States. Law enforcement always requires the balancing of two competing social concerns: on one hand, is the government's interest in protecting its citizens and prosecuting criminal conduct; on the other hand, is the right of

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

Although the section states that all the agreements in restraint of any profession, trade or business are void, the current trend as per various judicial pronouncements leads to the conclusion that reasonable restraint is permitted and does not turn into the contract void ab initio i.e. void from the beginning. Equanimity of restraint depends upon various factors, and the restraint in order to prevent denial of trade , secrets or business connections has to be reasonable in the interest of the parties to ensure adequate protection to the covenantee. The above section implies that to be valid an agreement in restraint of trade must be reasonable as between the parties and consistent with the interest of the

Numerous pieces of evidence led me to my conclusion about the contract in question. The first item of business a judge would attend to when making a decision is to decide whether a contract is present between any of the parties, and who those parties are. The contract under examination is between buyers Jon and Marsha and the seller Boren Deal. The documents pertaining to this case include the REPC as well as Addendum No. 1 which states the seller’s terms, and Addendum No. 2, the