Toymaker Law/421

Was it right that the player’s value was not high enough to hold him legally responsible for his breach of contract?

Issue 1: Could the defendant (Bob Sugar) be charged with breach of contract and unfair competition for soliciting the plaintiffs (Jerry Maguire) clients?

Mr Grant and Mr Bragg, who owns 50 % each of the share in a company called “Premier Resorts Limited”, wanted to make a contract to sell 50 % shareholding of Mr Grant to Mr Bragg at price of £346,760. Mr Christopher Jenkins who is a charted company secretary acted as an agent to facilitate the contract by drafting agreement letter. There were several tensions between them as a result there were several negotiations regarding the contract through e-mails and telephonic conversations between Mr Jenkins and Mr Grant. The first e-mail was sent by Jenkins to Grant, to make an offer that Bragg is ready to buy Grant’s shares based on terms drafted by “Dixon Ward wording”. On the same day at afternoon Jenkins and Grant had telephonic conversation, where Grant said that he would make contract only if Bragg is ready to show his future plans of the company and after making sure that the instalments will be made properly without fail. In the second e-mail Jenkins informed Grant that it is not possible to reveal the future plans of the company and asked Grant to confirm or edit the memo. Mr Grant replies in third e-mail, that he is no more interested in knowing future plans and Bragg is committed to buy my share, hence he must pay. Jenkins replied in fourth e-mail

Held: He was not entitled to commission for the period when he sold other supplier's goods.

-the reasoning: the letter agreement left the point of delivery up to future negotiation and was not specific to all essential terms. The letter was unenforceable agreement to agree and there was no contract.

           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.

this case could be an tricky in the court, because in the contract they only

Technical Consumer Products, Inc (TCP) makes and distributes energy-efficient lighting products. Emily Bahr was TCP’s district sales manager in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota when the company announced the details of a bonus plan. A district sales manager who achieved 100 percent year-over-year sales growth and a 42 percent gross margin would earn 200 percent of his or her base salary as a bonus. Bahr’s base salary was $42,500. Her final sales result for the year showed 113 percent year-over-year sales and a 42% growth margin. She anticipated a bonus of $85,945, but TCP could not afford to pay the bonuses as planned, and Bahr received only $34,229. In response to Bahr’s claim for breach of contract, TCP argued that the bonus plan was too indefinite to be an offer.

I will take a step by step analysis of the situation between Brenda and Albert. Firstly, I will advise Brenda and afterwards Albert. I will present the facts chronologically, as given to me, and advise on each issue individually with supporting evidence. I will refer to court cases and legislation such as Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sale of Goods Act 1979, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I will conclude by stating that despite the overwhelming evidence against Albert, supported by precedent court cases, there is no legal contract between the parties. I will provide Albert with legal advise assuming both business to business and business to consumer

This case illustrates the presence of conditions precedent, implied conditions, substantial performance, and breach of contract (material).

At the conclusion of the situation, BTT says that it's not serious about releasing Chou’s new technique game, Strat. Presuming BTT and Chou have got a deal, and BTT has breached the agreement by not releasing the game, discuss what solutions may or may not apply.

Once you have read the textbook chapter and the Reading, answer discussion questions 1, 3- 5 (ignore questions 2 and 6).

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

2. If they reject the contract their product line will stay the same and they will not have

injustice, since it was accorded that the contract would work in a certain way, and it could not be