BUS345.01 Business Law I
Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
November 3, 2003
1) This would indeed be a contract called an implied-in-fact contract. This is a contract that is implied from the conduct of the parties. Unlike other contracts, the contract was created through the conduct of the parties, not through words. This is what Miller and McCleskey have done. The parties both agreed through their conduct that it was alright for Miller to take the candy bar, which he will pay at a later date.
2) Nursing Services will probably be able to recover the $4000. Under the objective theory of contracts, intent is not determined by the personal or subjective belief of a party. It is determined by how objective facts would be interpreted by a reasonable person. Therefore, it doesn’t matter that Janine did not feel she should pay for the service because there was no physical contract. From an objective view of a reasonable person, Janine knowingly received services without objecting to them. Since she was aware of this, she should have to pay for the services she has received.
3) Atencio and his friend have formed a bilateral contract. In this type of contract, the contract comes into existence at the moment the promises are exchanged. Therefore, at the moment his friend put the red paper in her window, the contract was formed. This contract meant that next week Atencio will give his friend a watch in exchange for $100. Unlike a unilateral contract, a bilateral contract does not have to have a payment of money or delivery of goods to take place.
4) Davison will probably be able to recover payment from Burger Baby. As with unilateral contracts, problems arise when the promissor attempts to revoke the offer after the promisee has begun performance but before the act has been completed. This is exactly what has happened to Davison. He started to swim the Sound only to find out that Burger Baby had revoked their deal. Since Davison had already started, and eventually finished, he should be able to receive payment under the modern view of unilateral contracts.
1) No, this is not considered a contract between Ball and Sullivan. Sullivan must then accept the $60,000 offer made by Ball before an agreement or contract can be formed. If Sullivan does not accept the offer of $60,000, a contract has not been formed between the two parties.
2) a. The offer Sachs make becomes terminated once he dies. Even if the other party had no notice of the death, the acceptance is terminated when Sach’s dies. b. The offer is automatically terminated once the fire destroys the equipment in this situation. Sachs does not have to tell Barry the equipment has been destroyed for the offer to terminate. c. Barry is allowed to accept the offer because this situation is an irrevocable offer. Even though Sachs has died, an option contract is maintained. This option contract takes away the offeror’s power to revoke the offer for the period of time specified in the option. d. This is allowed because, again, this is an irrevocable offer, which means that even death to the offerer, or offeree does not necessarily terminate the offer made. Barry’s estate can then accept the offer to buy the equipment.
3) a. In this case, Perez would be billed the $22.95. Since he did not send the books back within 30 days of delivery as the agreement states, ABC will bill him for the specified amount. b. Since Perez never sent the card in, he has no obligation to send ABC the books back, because Perez never accepted the offer of the 30-day trial.
4) In this case, Dennis is incorrect. Under the mailbox rule, offer or revocation only becomes valid when the offeree receives it. Since Tanya had not received that revocation by the time she sent the acceptance, it is not applicable and therefore the...