Legal Issues A legal discussion of the contractual breaches and their related legal elements will be examined in this section. Some of the legal issues surrounding the contractual breaches include, the legal implications of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), the defendant’s engagement in and outputs contract while under a requirements contract with my company, the doctrine of estoppel, and the issues of good faith and fair dealing. The definitions and some of the legal implications of the implied and requirements contracts were discussed in the preceding sections. An implied contract is defined as a “contract that is established by the conduct of a party rather than by the party’s written or spoken words” (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, …show more content…
section 1-304, which states, “[e]very contract or duty within the [U.C.C.] imposes an obligation of good faith [and fair dealing] in its performance and enforcement” (U.C.C. § 1-304, 2012). The legal ramifications of a breach in good faith and fair dealing practices was exemplified in the Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc. case of 1997. The defendant (Borden Inc.) breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by curtailing its contract with the plaintiff. Based on these actions, the jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $412,000, which the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been fulfilled (Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 1997). Subject to this case’s precedent, the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing within my contract would also constitute a remedy of compensatory damages from the defendant. Although the defendant may claim his son was not an authorized agent of the company during the contract’s signing; the doctrine of estoppel legally destroys the validity of this claim. The doctrine of estoppel within the Restatement (third) of Agency (2006) in §2.05 states, “A person who has not made a manifestation that an actor has authority as an agent and who is not otherwise liable as a party to a transaction purportedly done by the actor on that person 's account is subject to liability to a third party who justifiably is induced to make a detrimental change in position because the transaction is believed to be on the person 's account, if the person intentionally or carelessly caused such belief” (Restatement (third) of Agency, 2006, §2.05). According to section 2.05, the doctrine of estoppel stands as a reasonable defense for the contract’s validity because the carelessness of the defendant’s son led me to believe he was an authorized agent of
Even though the contract was properly formed, there was a misrepresentation in Perez’s offer when he said that plaintiff “would be managing the sizeable workload of the company rather than bringing in business.” Judge Scarpulla, ruling for the lower court, said that to claim for fraudulent inducement, a plaintiff must show
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
United States has several laws that ensure that competition among businesses flow rely and new competitors get free access to the market. These laws intend to ensure fair and balanced competitive business practices. However, there are times when some businesses will do anything to gain competitive edge. USA has strong antitrust laws that prohibit fixing market price, price discrimination, conspiring boycott, monopolizing, and adopting unfair business practices. The history of Antitrust laws goes back to 1890 when Congress passed Sherman Act. In 1914, Congress passed two more acts: Federal Trade Commission Act, and Clayton Act. With some revisions, these three acts are still core antitrust acts.
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) was established to protect consumers in any legal trading activities in Australia. A set of guarantees has also been introduced for those consumers who are acquiring goods and services from Australian suppliers, importers or manufacturers. The guarantees are intended to ensure that consumers will receive the goods or services they have paid for. If they have problems with the products and services they bought, they are entitled for remedies, such as repair, replacement, and refund.
plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorized private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman Act or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.” (Federal Trade Commission [FTC], 2018)
This project began to give consideration to instituting a separate article of the UCC for software and related contracts. Article 2B is designed to bring uniformity across states and across the goods vs. services issue. It is intended to make software contract laws more consistent and clear among states. If laws are consistent from state to state it makes it easier for buyers and sellers to understand how to do business with each other. There is a great benefit in creating a uniform system for software products and services, however, this proposal for Article 2B does have major flaws.
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
There once was a time where dinosaurs roamed the earth. Some dinosaurs were stronger than others, making them the superior creatures. The Tyrannosaurus Rex is not that different from a corporate empire; both T-Rexes and monopolies ruled the land with little to no competition. They devoured the weak, crushed the opposition, and made sure they were king, but then, all of a sudden, they were extinct. The giants that once were predators became prey, whether it be a natural disaster or the Antitrust laws they no longer had control over the whole. The Antitrust laws have had a positive impact on American society through restricting monopolies; ensuring that no single business can control a market then using that power to exploit customers, protecting the public from price fixing, and producing new higher quality and innovative products through competition.
1.. At the end of World War II, the United States faced several economic problems. The biggest issue was that the country’s industries during the war were completely focused on supporting the war, so when the war ended, industries had to go back to normal. People were so used to rationing because there was a lack of products overall, and with the war over, the whole country had to try to return to normalcy. Veterans came home to shortages of food and consumer goods, and were left without jobs.
Competition law in the European Union has developed from being an uncertain preoccupation of a few economists, lawyers and officials to one of the leading competition law system in the globe. Nonetheless, in agreement with most commentators, there are inherent flaws within the EU Commission’s procedures. This paper aims to provide an account of concerns in the current system, drawing comments from scholars and EU officials in order to demonstrate both benefits and shortcomings of the system. An overview of the legal and policy debate of the current EU Competition enforcement will be presented as the introduction. Policy concerns such as prosecutorial bias and self-incrimination in enforcement powers will be the main subjects for the purpose of this paper, followed by analysis of the EU commission structure, in particular checks and balances and the hearing process, both of which have been claimed being incompatible with the ECHR. A comparison with the US Antitrust system will also be paralleled through out this essay in order to demonstrate a clearer examination. This essay will conclude with the Commission’s flaws that have effected on the upcoming UK competition law reforms.
Uber Technologies Inc. continues to battle with law suits regarding several issues in violation of the antitrust law. The question “who are Uber’s drivers (Gersham, 2016)?” have yet to be answered (Gersham, 2016). In California the class action suit on Uber’s driver status is still in question, “employees or independent contractors (Gersham, 2016). While in Manhattan there is an unusual antitrust case where the federal court is trying to answer a simpler question, “what is Uber (Gersham, 2016)?” Customers complained that Uber is not a product or a service, but a conspiracy (Gersham, 2016). In 2014, Spencer Meyer and on the behalf of others affected by Uber’s price fixing algorithms is suing the defendant Travis Kalanick, who is the chief executive officer and co-founder of Uber Technologies, Inc (Spencer Meyer vs. Travis Kalanick, 2016). The allegations includes; a business plan that encourages fix prices among competitors while taking a cut of the profit, the classification of drivers as independent, and that they are only a technology
Even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of the misconduct, he/she may be held for an agent’s tort committed in the course and scope of the agent’s employment. As noted in Case Study 1, an agent is to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal. A principal who is under a duty to provide protection is subject to liability to such others for harm caused to them by the failure of such agent to perform the duty. A principal is not relieved from the separable part of a contract which he/she authorized the agent to make by the fact that the agent under took. Even where the agent’s unauthorized act constitutes a fraud on both the principal and the third person, the partial validity rule is applicable.
Contractual Terms Works Cited Not Included Contractual terms are statements that form part of a contract. Parties
Breach of contracts can have serious damages for businesses. An expected service or agreement that is no longer met or kept impacts everyone involved. A breach of contract can reduce earnings while also potentially harming future profits. It also puts a company’s value at risk if they cannot meet demands for products or meet deadlines. There are often damages that result from contract claims and breaches. Claims are made by both parties involved to argue over projected lost revenues, sales impacts, lost value, and added costs resulting from the breach. Damages estimates are made using historical information and projections to support a plaintiff’s claim that financial damages are a result of the contract violation. The list of possible damages that in a damage estimate include: lost sales and profits, lost value, and extra costs.
would like to put you in a situation and show you how a consumer can