b) Instead of the above letter, assume that at Pablo’s retirement dinner, the chairman of the board of directors of Xerxes Corps., in his speech, said “In view of the fact that you have been faithful to Xerxes Corp. for 30 years and have resisted efforts of our competitors to hire you away from us, the corporation promises to pay you a pension of $100,000 a year for life.” Pablo stood up and said, “I accept your pension promise with gratitude.” Is Xerxes Corps.’s promise enforceable by Pablo and if not, what would be necessary to make it enforceable? Explain. Answer: No, it is not enforceable because there was no bargained-for exchange. Pablo did not give Xerxes Corp. something of legal value in return for this promise. Therefore, if Pablo …show more content…
Alfalfa, a novice rock climber, decided to go on a very difficult climb. Half way up, he found himself in trouble. Darla, a more experienced climber, at great peril to herself, rescued Alfalfa from almost certain serious injury, if not death. Alfalfa was so grateful for what Darla had done that he promised to send her a check for $1,000. Alfalfa failed to send the check and Darla sues him for breach of contract. Judgment for whom? Explain. Answer: Judgment for Alfalfa. Alfalfa was in trouble when he was climbing and Darla rescued him from an almost certain serious injury or death. It was a legally sufficient value since Darla did not have to perform such an act, but she did. Afterwards, Alfalfa promised her a check of $1,000, which qualifies for a bargained-for exchange. However, this promise was made in the event when the action already took place. Therefore, there is a past consideration and does not need to be enforced. 3. Debbie owed Carlos $50,000 on a contract for the purchase of 200 air conditioners on credit, the terms of payment stating “Payment due 60 days after delivery.” Delivery was made on January 2. On March 10, Debbie met Carlos and told him, “I’m sorry I missed out on paying you what I owe you. Collections have been slow. If you give me until May 1, I’ll pay you what I owe plus interest at 9%.” Carlos said, “O.K. I’ll give you until May 1.” On March 15, Carlos changed his mind and sued Debbie for $50,000. Debbie contends that the debt is not due until May …show more content…
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain. Answer: Aldo cannot recover the $1,000 balance from Rafael. It’s because Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. When the refrigerators were delivered via Fleet Railroad, Aldo is not held liable to the
Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
Eva claimed full amount was due, but Maria argued that only $50,000 is worth of services performed.
Friganim Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. Facts: Friganim Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered into. In the first of the two contracts, Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. (smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract than the first agreement)
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
Walker, Takem’s has the statutory law of contracts in his favor. In a contract, the seller and the purchaser have certain rights and obligations. Four basics must be met for a contract to be created (Chrisman, 2014). First, the offer has to be made. In the case at hand, the door-to-door salesperson made an offer of a computer to Ms. Walker. Second, the consideration has to be accepted. Ms. Walker accepted the offer to purchase a computer. The third step is capacity. The purchaser must be legally capable of entering into a contract; minors and the mentally incompetent are excluded in this case. Takem’s has given Ms. Walker the computer in exchange for her payments on her store account. Finally, the intention to enter into a contract has to be present. Ms. Walker signed a bill of sale, a security agreement, and a negotiable promissory note- which is an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money at a certain time in the future. Though Takem’s has the advantage to combat her claims, Tommy needs to ensure that his salespeople have not made any false statements or misrepresentations to Ms. Walker as this could have legal implications for the store and against the contract (Vaccaro, 1987). Ms. Walker is legally bound by the contract she agreed to in exchange for the computer; however if there has been any misrepresentations or false statements Ms. Walker may be able, with legal assistance, to call the contract into question
There were also no terms or conditions to perform, nor a time or event of completion of performance. “USLegal.com helped further explain the requirements of a legally enforceable contract by providing the following elements that must be adhered to, in order for a contract to be legally binding: an offer; 1. an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds, 2. a promise to perform, 3. a valuable consideration, 4.
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
The four elements of a contract are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object. The oral agreement between Sam and the chain store satisfies the agreement element of a contract definition because when the chain store offered to sell Sam 's invention at their stores, Sam accepted by agreeing to ship 1000 units in exchange. The second element of a contract, the “consideration of each party,” is satisfied because Sam and the chain store have something to give the other (1000 units of the invention in exchange for the exclusive sales of the product at their stores). The third element is “contractual capacity,” which may or may not be fulfilled since we do not know Sam 's age or whether
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
Additionally, registration papers were not to be released until Herring paid in full. These provisions gave the Bowmans the ability to recover the horse in case of default on the payments. Thus providing a security interest for the seller until there was no risk of loss. Even though Herring was not in full possession of the horse, the provisions established that Herring owned the horse.
CSX Corporation is amongst the leading transportation suppliers within the nation. The Intermodal and Rail business of the company avail rail-based services that included traditional rail service and intermodal trailers and containers transport (CSX Cooperation, n.d). The transportation network of the company comprises of approximately twenty-one thousand track route miles covering, District of Columbia and Provinces of Quebec and Ontario in Canada.
Roberto is the plant superintendent of a small manufacturing company that is owned by a large corporation. The corporation has a policy that any expenditure over $1,000 must be approved by the chief financial officer in the corporate headquarters. The approval process takes a minimum of three weeks. Roberto would like to order a new labeling machine that is expected to reduce costs and pay for itself in six months. The machine costs $2,200, but Roberto can buy the sales rep’s demo for $1,800. Roberto has asked the sales rep to send two separate bills for $900 each.
Xerox's "Book In Time" is a revolutionary product, presenting some new opportunities for the company. It is simply a matter of costs. The Book-in-Time equipment allows for a publishing company to produce a 300-page book for $6.90, something which could have been previously reached only for lots larger than 1,000 copies. A significant decrease in publishing costs, given the fact that these cover up to 20 % (including the paper and binding the book), would create the possibility of an increased profit margin.
B.) With regards to Denise paying the £500 for completing the work on the second deadline, it could be argued that a contract was formed between Denise and Erick when Denise asked Erick to complete the work by the 15th in order to receive the £500, Erick did complete the work on time there for is due the payment, this comes under consideration as something was offered in return for payment. In order for the promise to be enforceable there has to be a clear and sufficient proof of consideration from promisee. Erick accepts the offer of£500 there for a price is agreed upon and past consideration may not
In the case of one party promising to give another party £50, it is merely seen as a gift, therefore this is considered unenforceable as a simple contract. This may be justifiable as there is nothing which clearly illustrates that, it is a necessity for a party to give something, in order for them to be able to enforce a promise. This is also known as the “quid pro quo,” it has been similarly illustrated in; Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] AC 847 (HL).