Week 2 Cases for Analysis
O’Keefe v. Lee Calan Imports, Inc., 262 N.E.2d 758 (IL)
O’Keefe was incorrect since the newspaper article contained an error that was not the fault of Lee Calan Imports, Inc., so the advertisement itself could not be considered an offer as the four elements of a valid contract were not met. Mutual assent “emerges when the parties to the contract have a ‘meeting of the minds’” (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 169). Mutual assent did not occur in this case as an advertisement in a newspaper would not be considered a meeting of the minds. While O’Keefe was free to offer $1,095 for the Volvo, Lee Calan was under no obligation to accept that offer as there was no binding agreement. Advertisements are not considered to be offers by the court, except in rare cases where very specific promises are made in the advertisement such as “first-come, first-served”, or if the advertisement sets a limit on how many of the item can be sold (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 172).
Morrison v. Thoelke, 155 So.2d 889 (FL)
Thoelke’s letter was a valid acceptance, thus binding Morrison to the sale. Thoelke originally sent a letter to Morrison, making a letter an authorized means of communication under long-distance communication since it had been endorsed by Thoelke (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 174). Additionally, an offer made through the mail is considered to be accepted once the acceptance is mailed, or sent by any faster means such as e-mail or a phone call (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 174). Receipt of the letter was not necessary in order to make the contract binding (Brown & Sukys, 2013).
Loral Corporation, 272 N.E.2d 533 (NY)
The court did grant Loral’s request since the nature of duress would make the contract voidable (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 185). Duress is when one person or party forces another to do what would not otherwise need to be done (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 185). In this case, Austin Instrument, Inc. forced Loral to purchase the goods from them at a higher price since Loral tried and failed to find the necessary equipment anywhere else. Economic duress exists in this case since Loral was able to show that Austin Instrument, Inc. placed them in a bad economic situation, that they had no other alternative other than to do what Austin Instrument, Inc. was asking in terms of paying more, and that Loral acted reasonably when entering into the contract with Austin Instrument, Inc. (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 185).
Davidson v. Evans
Evans is correct that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply. Promissory estoppel “restricts a party from denying that a promise was made under certain conditions, even though consideration has not been exchanged to bind an agreement” (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 200). In order to be effective, it requires that the person who makes the promise knows, or is presumed to have known, that the other party might change their position based on the promises made (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 200). In this example, Evans left her job since Davidson told her to and said he wanted her to work for him and even gave her a start date. This shows that it was reasonable for Davidson to presume that Evans would quit her job, since he told her to in addition to telling her when she would start working for him.
Seier v. Peck
The court would not have listened to Seier’s argument and attempt to determine the value of the consideration, because the court does not hear cases of adequacy of consideration unless it is deemed unconscionable (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 193). Seier and Peck had met and bargained and agreed to in writing what the value was for the stock. Seier than later decided it was not worth what they had previously agreed upon. However, because the courts do not care if the consideration value was fair to both of the involved parties (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 193). The courts only care to enforce the agreements that were made by allowing people to place a value on their own services and goods and entering their own agreements (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 193).
Meng v. Trustees of Boston University, 96-9776 Appeals Court (MA)
The oral promise was not enforceable since due to the Statute of Frauds, contracts that cannot be completed within one year, must be in writing in order to be enforceable (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 229). Since Meng was supposed to receive 14 months of salary, this spanned over the time period of a year, thus making it unenforceable unless it had been made in writing (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 230).
Lawson and Konves
Konves was correct in making this demand because if Konves was to spend a week at each of 87 boutiques, the time spent at the boutiques in total would be over a year. The Statute of Frauds specifies that any contract that is going to not be completed within a year must be in writing in order to be enforceable (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 229). If there was no signed contract, and Lawson backed out of the contract, Konves would not have been able to successfully argued that the contract was enforceable, since the time period this contract was to be completed was over a year in time (Brown & Sukys, 2013, p. 229).
Brown, G.W. & Sukys, P.A. (2013). Business law with applications (13th ed.). New York, NY:
The post Week 2 Cases for Analysis appeared first on Dissertations Expert.
Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.