Woodfield Nissan

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

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

-the facts: an anti-nuclear protest group sent an application to seek permission to rent a room. The Alliance hoped to use the room for a dance. The Adjutant general mailed a contract offer to the Alliance, agreeing to rent on specific terms. The offer required a signed acceptance. The day that Cushing received it he signed it and put it in the office’s outbox. The next day Cushing received a call stating that the offer was being withdrawn, and although Cushing said he had already accepted the general stated that it was withdrawn. They brought suit against Governor Thomson. The court ruled that a contract had been formed and Thomson appealed.

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

The evidence showed that the contract to purchase appellant’s business and the promissory note were signed only by Joe Alexander on behalf of the corporation. Harris’ wife testified that appellees were not present when the contract was signed.

Additionally, when it comes to a contract being labeled as “unconscionable”, it relates to “the process of contract formation essentially involves a “take it or leave it” offer of an agreement drafted by a more powerful party (a “contract of adhesion”) and when the contents of the agreement unreasonably favor the more powerful party” (p. 22). With the term “procedurally unconscionable”, which is what Judge Fuentes pointed out Nino had no opportunity to negotiate with DI over the contract terms, DI was the stronger contractual party, and the arbitration agreement is thus

The trial court judged in favor of Plaintiff, thus, Plaintiff won and Defendant lost. The question of fact was if a contract existed between the parties. The trial court decided that the contract existed, even Ivan was against it, if he had read through Application for Advertising, he would have realized that he was signing contract.

Marlene then proceeded to file a lawsuit against the auto dealer for malicious prosecution. In the end, a settlement of $100,000.00 was awarded to Marlene of which $30,000.00 was allocated to the attorney in adherence to the contract stipulation of 30% of any proceeds. The attorney issues a check of $70,000.00

Vic is awarded $200,000.00 at trial. Gekko pays $100,000.00 in accordance with Donna’s auto policy coverage, and

The Company and Union have jointly agreed to an alternative arbitrator, John Barnard, a seasoned arbitrator out of the Dallas area. Feedback received from others who have presented to Barnard indicate that he is a fair arbitrator with interest arbitration experience. The parties have notified him that he has been chosen and has requested potential dates for the interest arbitration.

Arbitration can conclude in a binding or a non-binding form depending on the disputing parties. During arbitration, both parties’ representatives/attorneys present their cases before an independent arbiter who would decide on the matter. The decision can then become an official binding agreement between parties and resolve the dispute (United States Office of Personnel Management, n.d). One major advantage to arbitration is the ability to save time and have a decision in a short amount of time relative to litigation. Moreover, in arbitration, the arbiter can be selected to be an expert on the matter at hand and therefore create a more understanding environment (justice.govt.nz, nd). On the other hand, arbitration can bind both parties to the decision where there is no room for an appeal as well as the dependence on the arbiter’s competence at the

The case is between Andy and a car dealer over the importation of a car that has to be fixed with five additional features. The time that the two parties take to enter the contract is approximately four hours. The car dealer is seeking to have Andy Option compelled to buy the vehicle owing to the signing of the contract. Furthermore, the attorney of the car dealer is against the option of Andy Option testifying to the court due to the type of evidence that he is set to present before the court of law. Notably, the only acceptable type of proof that is configured to be submitted before the tribunal must be written evidence. The value of the car that Andy Option is buying from the car dealer is $20,000. The threshold for having a written agreement

Plaintiff Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) and Defendant, American Expedition Vehicles, Inc. (Defendant) are both automobile manufacturing companies that produce high performance vehicles. J.A. at 2. Volkswagen Group owns Lamborghini through its subsidiary, Audi. J.A. at 15. Defendant purchases Jeep Wranglers from the Chrysler Group and customizes them with accessories. J.A. at 25. Starting in 2015, dealerships reported to Lamborghini that they have received phone calls from individuals who expressed confusion over whether a Defendant vehicle was produced by Lamborghini. J.A. at 19. The first caller, a previous Lamborghini owner, expressed confusion over the source of the vehicle

rules give a definite meaning of the term ‘arbitral award’. The Working Group of the

Additionally, it could be hard to construct an effective arbitration agreement especially in multi-party contracts. and that's why we should have careful consideration of arbitration clauses in a draft contract as defective or incomplete arbitration clauses may result multiple judicial proceedings in different national courts. (Born, 1994)