Burger Restaurant Case

1120 Words3 Pages

Legal Analysis1
Conclusion
Mr. Washington demands compensation for the losses that Burger Ranch’s restaurant sustained as a result of the fire. He faxed a copy to Erica Marcus of the construction bid Burger’s restaurant accepted to reconstruct the premises, which came out to $464,900. In addition to the reconstruction costs, he also demands compensation for the potential profits the restaurant could have generated during the downtime.
Conclusion in Terms of Law
An acceptance is “a final and ineligible expression of assent to the terms of an offer”. Acceptance of an offer can be tenacious through the following guidelines: (1) the acceptance must be communicated with the intention of both parties to enter a mutual contract; however, the offer may be revoked prior to acceptance, (2) the offer can only accept the initial terms and can only be accepted by the intended offeree, (3) the offeree must accept the terms through a concrete method if authoritatively mandated by offeror. [Contracts Law: Offer and Acceptance]. Pine Trees failed to mention/incorporate their disclaimer of consequential damages in the initial terms, engendering a counter offer. (Aguilar Manufacturing v. Richfield) The three guidelines indicted above must be met by Burger Ranch to …show more content…

Richfield The plaintiff, Aguilar, repines by saying “they failed to commence the within action within the one year constraint period that was expressly acceded to by the parties in indicting.” Aguilar would inductively authorize emulsion and Polycol 2151 from Richfield and would receive invoices infrequently with the orders. However, Richfield did not include the one year inhibition that verbally expressed “Any action by Buyer hereunder shall be commenced within one year after receipt of verbally expressed products.” Aguilar filed the lawsuit for breach of warranty, fraud, and negligent

More about Burger Restaurant Case

Open Document