genuine assent. Genuine assent is “assent to a contract that is free of fraud, duress, undue influence, and mutual mistake” (Kubasek et al, 2015, p. 251). Again, as stated above, there is some question of whether or not there existed fraud or undue influence, in which case there is also the question of whether or not genuine assent was given. competent parties. Competency is “a person’s ability to understand the nature of the transaction and the consequences of entering into it at the time the contract was entered into” (Kubasek et al, 2015, p. 254). The primary aspect in considering competency in this case, is John Doe’s minor son. There is a question of capacity to contract, which will be discussed further in a subsequent section of this analysis. legal object. A legal object is “a contract subject matter that is lawful under statutory and case law” (Kubasek et al, 2015, p. 255). The object in this case, the supply of grapes, is most likely considered a legal object. Hypothetically, for instance, if the grapes were illegally grown, distributed, or sold in violation of a specific law, then this element would not be satisfied, and the contract would be considered void. vagueness in implied contract. A reasonable person might conclude that John Doe was conducting business in a responsible honest manner by fulfilling each of the invoices that were requested by Marshall Peterson. It can be speculated that, to his knowledge, there was not an expressed contract that he
Consent means to provide approval for something to happen or an arrangement to do something.
On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in
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.
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.
Contractual capacity is defined by the law to mean the ability to understand the consequences of a contract.
Contractual capacity is, “The legal capability to form a binding contract. A number of classes of people lack contractual capacity, and these include minors…” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2010). A minor’s capacity to contract and the lack of an employee’s capacity to bind a company by contract could be used in defense against a breach of contract.’ Consideration is necessary for any contract to exist. A promissory estoppel is used when consideration requirements are absent (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p.250).
The issue is whether the appelles, Avanell Looney and Rita Alexander, had acted for or on behalf of J&R Construction at the time of signing the contract.
g. On December 31, 2012, the company completed the work on a contract for an out-of-province company for $7,900 payable by the customer within 30 days. No cash has been collected and no journal entry has been made for this transaction.
I agree with the court’s decision in favor of Mills. The case fall under the Statue of Fraud One year rule as it had been 107 months since the oral contract was created. The oral agreement was unenforceable after the time period as it violates the Statute of Fraud. Mrs. Sawyer did not have the agreement in writing; therefore it could not be enforced even though he had paid a little over 13 months in checks.
In regards to the issue between Mr. Stevens and the chain store, various elements must be present to prove that a valid contract exists. The four elements to a contract are: agreement between the parties, consideration, contractual capacity, and finally, legal object (Kubasek, Browne, Giampetro-Meyer, Barkacs, Herron, Williamson, & Dhooge, 2011).
Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in
Contract is defined as an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. For purposes of this chapter, we are concerned with agreements to buy and sell some type of agricultural product. Contracts 101 You should be concerned about contract law because it determines how parties to the contract will need to keep the promises they make. Although very few contracts ever end up in court, if the parties to a contract disagree on something and are unable to resolve the disagreement, they may have to resort to the judicial process. This means that as the parties negotiate a contract, they need to consider how a judge might ultimately interpret it. For a contract to be enforceable, it must involve:
Ashley Johnson is the sole owner of Johnson Real Estate, hereby referred to as “JRE”, which is a sole proprietorship (LLC) that lists and sells real estate in West Virginia. Ashley’s husband James is the president of JRE and is the day to day operator. Besides James, there are two employees: office manager Joan Rogers and receptionist Doris Chambers. The realtors are contracted sub-agents that personally collect commission checks at the end of each month. These realtors receive 65% of the commission granted to the broker, the rest is deposited into JRE’s checking account. Ashley noticed discrepancies in the commission receipts from closings and the actual bank deposits in the year of 20X9. The previous year there were no problems. JRE has not been audited for the past three years due to rapid growth. Ashley filed a report with the local prosecutor, a family friend, and requested a thorough investigation, which resulted in the prosecutor’s office contracting an accounting firm to complete the financial examination. The prosecutor’s office assigned special agents Thomas and Longworth to the case. The prosecutors are Gina Conrad and Barry Morton.
As stated in the Gould Commercial Code Section 2-207 subsection 1, “A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to
Competency: Ability to collect and evaluate information, develops alternatives, and expects possible penalties and risks (Jones, 1991).