Bai 1 : Business Law:
40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract.
Decision: Esposito had to pay $62.5 to Excel
41. Principle of Law: The bargain between the nephew and his uncle is an oral contract, therefore the nephew’s promise to avoid drinking, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards and billiards for money until he became 21 legal consideration. However, in order to get the money, the nephew had to give the evidence of his bargain with his uncle, and his uncle’s acknowledgement that he practiced his part in the bargain.
Decision: The nephew needs to give evidence of his oral bargain with his uncle so that he can get the amount of $5,000.
43. Principle of Law: In this case, Grogan, a marketing consultant, was hired by Kreger Bottling Company to conduct market research into the taste preferences of consumers in a major city. This is his obligation in the labor contract between Grogan and Kreger. His additional task of analyzing the appeal of various shapes of bottles that Kreger was considering for a new line of soft drinks was not included in the contract. Therefore Grogan had the right of claim his bill from Kreger, and Kreger had to clear his bill for the taste test.
Decision: Kreger had to clear Grogan’s bill for the taste test.
35. Principle of Law: According to the bidding law, here Pote is the seller in bidding for Fletcher-Harlee Corp and has some obligations follows: 1) pre-solicitation sales activities, 2) getting qualified, 3) reviewing the RFP in light of all available intelligence, 4) deciding to bid or not to bid, 5) being fully responsive to the proposal, 6) differentiating its offer from competitors, 7) accurately to estimate cost, and 8) effectively sell the job in the post-quote period. Therefore, Pote had to estimate all costs before submitting its written price quotation for concrete and its quotation was unable to be for informational purposes.
Decision: Pote’s bid didn’t constitute a valid offer.
36. Principle of Law: The transaction between Browne and Houlihan was just under negotiation process and not form the contract. Browne did not acknowledge Houlihan’s e-mail and did not reply to accept Houlihan’s request, so he sold the television set to another. Houlihan then purchased a new set more expensive than Browne’s set. Both of them didn’t break the contract because there’s no contract between them. Therefore Houlihan had no legal basis to sue Browne for $1,000.
Decision: Houlihan and Browne didn’t have a valid contract, and Houlihan will be unable to recover $1,000 from Browne.
37. Principle of Law: The contract is an agreement agreed among parties. If there’s any changes related to the contract, all parties in the contract had to be informed and agree changes. However, in this case McGurn crossed out the number 12, replaced it with the number 24 without informing Bell about this and signed the contract. Bell didn’t acknowledge the change that had been made to the contract. If there’s any dispute raised from this contract, Bell can refuse its obligation with the reason that the contract is not valid. Actually, the fact that Bell didn’t acknowledge the change can’t happen because all parties in the contract has to check very carefully before performing the contract.
Decision: Bell’s silence as to McGurn’s counteroffer didn’t amount to an acceptance.
38. Principle of Law: In this case, Sanderson Mart promised to sell 100 Electric Hand Drills with cheap price on Saturday only. Cruz arrived at the store with the time as advertisement but can’t buy the Electric Drill because Sanderson just had 2 in stock and let them for 2 other customers. It’s impossible for Sanderson to do that because according to the advertisement, 100 electric hand Drills are for the first 100 customers. Unless Sanderson was out of stock, it had to sell electric drill to Cruz.
Decision: Sanderson will be required to sell the electric drill for the advertised price.
University/College: University of Arkansas System
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 24 December 2016
We will write a custom essay sample on Business Law
for only $16.38 $12.9/page