What Should You Do About Business With Marshall?

In this case, there are several important issues to note. The initial issues is that a contract was signed by a minor acting on behalf of the company and not by a specified owner of the company. The question here is if this contract is legally binding and what recourse of actions the parties may have. The first step would be to consider the legality of the contract. In order for a contract to be legal it has to possess several important criteria. Contracts have to be communicated to the parties it effects clearly. (Kubasek 2015). In this case, the contract was not communicated at all to the owners of Muscadine grapes and it was also not

-The Issue: were all the elements of a contract present to make the contract enforceable?

McTavish [principal] has been wronged by the agent and is facing legal actions due to the unauthorized actions of the agent. McTavish is in the rightful position to sue the agent in court for the breach of a clearly stated instruction in the contract.

It is true that Wally did sign the order form, but in order for the contract to be valid it must have included the quantity of watched needed for shipment. As stated above, one of the requirements in the UCC Statute of Frauds states that when writing up a contract quantity must always be provided, in case of breach of contract. The courts have no way of factoring in the quantity. The answer to question 1 would be that the contract was not in writing.

The contract was for a total of 62,748 jogging suits that would be custom made for girls and boys. The total contract price was for $ 749,103.60 that included the shipping of the merchandise, which would be shipped within six purchase orders. On or about August 29, 1994 they (Goody’s) terminated their contract in writing, which validates a right to cancel. The parties agreed to amend the first shipment date, Goody’s deny that all other shipment dates were to be amended as well. Goody’s feel that there was any “wrongful, unlawful, or without good cause or justification” eras on their behalf.

Of course, my son believed Petersen and signed the document without understanding it was a contract guaranteeing Petersen a price schedule for future product shipments. I am thoroughly convinced that Petersen’s intentions are to seek legal remedy for damages that his company will have incurred if I was to discontinue providing him with the quantity of product he needs when he needs it at the same price he has always paid. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 2-306 specifically deals with output, requirements and exclusive dealings between parties in legal agreements (Law.Cornell.edu, n.d.).

Howell Jewelry World entered into an at will employment contract with Jennifer Lawson (“defendant”). The company provided a legal and enforceable employment contract. The defendant read, accepted and signed the employment contract offered under no duress or coercion. A covenant not to compete nor disclose company patent secrets to Howell’s competitors the defendant initialed and signed. Jennifer Lawson was terminated from employment due to excessive tardiness. Upon termination, it was revealed to Howell Jewelry World, the defendant is an employee of Triumph Jewels, another company in competition with Howell. The defendant is liable for breach of covenant not to compete. Howell Jewelry World is pursuing legal actions against Triumph Jewels for Jennifer Howell’s breach of covenant not to compete.

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract.  As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).

The Defendant worked in the research and development department at Greene’s Jewelry as a junior executive secretary for 3 years. The Defendant recently found out she was pregnant and was released from the company by Lisa Peele, head of Human Resources per Greene’s Jewelry was downsizing and The Defendants position was no longer needed. Upon leaving Greene’s Jewelry the Defendant took documents disclosing patent information that outlined the secret process of manufacturing Ever-Gold. Ever-Gold is a synthetic gold-colored material that’s impervious to scratches, discoloration, oxidization, and is marked as “everlasting gold” (2016), which is used on Greene’s Jewelry necklaces, rings, earrings, and bracelets. This is Greene’s Jewelry most asset. Upon accepting employment with Greene’s Jewelry, The Defendant signed a nondisclosure agreement that legally binds those who agree to keep specified information a secret or secured. The Defendant never signed a covenant agreement with Greene’s Jewelry. The Defendant becomes employed with one of Greene’s Jewelry competitors Howell Jewelry World. Howell Jewelry World knows The

I drafted the requirements and one particular day, I handed the supplier’s son the requirements contract and asked him to sign on behalf of the company, which he agreed to. However, the demand for the products skyrocketed nationwide after an article was written in the Huffington Post highlighting the antioxidant qualities of Muscadine; prompting the supplier to repudiate the contract by either increasing the prices of the products or referring me to other providers. At the time, the requirements contract was signed by the supplier’s son I was not aware that he a minor.

A.1 sought to introduce and launch a new poultry marinade item, and was planning to continue an aggressive marketing campaign against its competitors. However, marketing the new poultry product was a failure and A.1 had to reassess its strategies regarding the launching of new trial marinade brands. The major challenge that A.1 based however was protecting its market share, and brand integrity by counteracting though bold launch of a new steak sauce product by Lawry which was cheaper, and very similar to the A.1 product. Lawry Steak Sauce was one dollar less than A.1. Steak Sauce ($3.99 vs. $4.99), and the Lawry product were 11 ounces whereas A.1 was 10 ounces. Lawry’s product was also similar in taste, texture and packaging as the A.1 product which also presented a serious problem for A.1. Added to this was the fact that Lawry introduced its new product live on an interactive cooking show which gave the product an extra media boost. (Kerin & Peterson, 2011, 634)

The plaintiff Leonard used drastic interpretations of substantive and contract law to express his understanding of the Pepsi Stuff promotion. Plaintiff feels if "an advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation [then] it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract"(Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). In such a case, an advertisement that is so specific leaves no grounds for questioning, therefore a contract is formed. The plaintiff attempts to stretch the boundaries of unilateral contracts claiming that PepsiCo made a clear offer and that he should receive the reward promised for his performance of the specified act. This is backed by the commanding 1892 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case stating, "If a person chooses to make extravagant promises…he probably does so because it pays him to make them, and if he has made them, the extravagance of the promises is no reason in law why he should not be bound by them" (Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). The plaintiff claims that the commercial posed an offer to him and through this offer he should be granted a reward even though there is no legally binding

He may also feel that the contact was breached and he is owed restitution. Marshall in this disagreement should first attempt to resolve this dispute without pursuing any legal action. He could use his faith and biblical teachings, to show errors of ways. He could argue the contract unenforceable due to fraud and inept execution, if he must rely on legal relief. The business relationship is best suited to be served also. The common law duty is to always act in good faith. Good faith performance is an implied agreement in nearly every contract in American common law jurisdictions (Burton, 1980). In the contract in question the promise was made, upholding an expectation of receiving the terms agreed upon in the contract. The issue is to act in good faith or to enforce the law. Marshall can secure not only supply, price, but also control of the benefits earned by his supplier. From a legal aspect, Marshall has acted in bad faith. A minor capacity to sign a contract is the bad faith act on Marshall’s part.

that the document did not appear to be contractual. In D J Hill and Co