In order to accurately understand the concept of agreement it is crucial to understand when a valid offer has been made. An offer is made when a party, known as the offeror, presents terms of a contract to another party. The party that receives the offer is known as the offeree. If the offeree accepts the offer, the two parties are considered to be in agreement. 

In contrast to offers are “invitations to treat.” Invitations to treat are not offers. Invitations to treat can happen in a number of ways. Some of the most common include the display of goods in a store window, an auction without reserve, the solicitation of competitive bids, or advertisements for goods.

Except in specific circumstances, an auction does not constitute a legally binding offer and agreement process. An auction can be held with or without reserve. An auction without reserve is the rarer of the two kinds. An action without reserve means that the item will automatically be sold to the highest bidder regardless of the price.

An auction with reserve, or reserve auction, is an auction in which the person putting the item up for auction has stated a price below which they are unwilling to part with the item or circumstances under which they “reserve” the right to not complete the exchange of goods.

Auctions present interesting situations when considering offers and agreements. In an auction without reserve, the person placing the goods up for auction is obligated to accept the final bid. Each bid during the auction represents a new offer. Each higher bid that the auctioneer accepts means that the offer represented by the previous bid is invalidated.

During a reserve auction this can create some complications. If the person placing the goods up for auction decides against accepting the highest bid, they are left without an alternative. Even if the person would rather accept the second highest bid represented, they are unable to do so because the higher bid caused the previous bid to become voidable.

Advertisements are not usually considered to be offers because they may oblige the person creating the advertisement to sell more goods than they possess. As a result, an agreement cannot be reached as the result of an individual responding to an advertisement. Advertisements are technically considered “invitations to treat.” However, there are circumstances in which an advertisement can constitute an offer. 

The Nineteenth Century case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company in England involved a promise by Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to pay £100 to anyone who used their product but still developed influenza, which their product was claimed to prevent. As guarantee of their claim, the advertisement said that the company had deposited £1000 in an account to pay anyone who caught the flu. The advertisement was considered to be a unilateral contract. 

The agreement by Louisa Carlill was twofold. The first part of the agreement can be seen in her purchase of the smoke ball and the second element of agreement was her continued use of the ball. The English Court of Appeals ruled that the advertisement became a legally binding contract on several grounds.

The most relevant part of the ruling was that while an offer existed between the company and the entire world, a contract only existed with those individuals who had taken the actions to accept the terms of the offer. Acceptance in this case is interchangeable with agreement. This case also cemented the idea that conduct was sufficient to convey agreement with the terms of the advertisement’s offer.

Agreements to agree are not considered legally binding. These legal documents only reveal that the concerned parties are considering a future contract. In and of themselves, an agreement to agree does not mandate action on the part of either party. Agreements to agree arise when two parties are discussing an event involving future transactions which are still in progress.

A statement of future intent is not a legally binding contract. It only indicates an agreement by the two parties involved in the negotiation to attempt to form a future contract. An agreement to agree is not binding if the matter under discussion is still in dispute. An agreement to agree may be considered a contract, however, if the material terms of agreement are present. 

Agreements to agree can become legally binding agreements if they contain all the typical elements of a contract. If, however, an agreement to agree merely records the terms that have been discussed in preliminary negotiations or they can be given the full weight of a contract to which both parties have agreed. Agreements to agree are sometimes known as letters of intent. Whether the document is titled an agreement to agree or a letter of intent, the legal significance of the terms is equal.

In order for agreement to occur, the offeree must have an intention to enter into the contract. Intention can be interpreted by action or by verbal acceptance of the terms provided by the offeror. Intention also extends to the offeror. The offeror’s intentions are rarely subject to question. 

Intention to form a contract is one of the requirements to form a contract. Intention to be legally bound by a contract does not exist during the initial negotiation of a contract. Courts generally do not assign intention to either party by their interpretation of the parties’ statements of future intent or by agreements to agree.

Contract Law Context for Service Level Agreements

 

 

A service level agreement (SLA) is a kind of contract which sets the understood and legally bearing conditions, or level, for a certain specific kind of commercially offered and accessed service.

 

 

As with other kinds of contracts also passed in the commercial and business world, a service level agreement will necessarily involve at least two entities signatory to the contract and thus subject to its provisions, thereby establishing a legal relationship, as could be further used, upon claimed instances of violation or illegal modification thereof, to furnish the grounds for a process of civil litigation transacted in the U.S. legal system. 

 

 

Identifying Service Level Agreements

 

 

A service level agreement must necessarily be identified in order for the correct application of U.S. contract law, in terms of those contracts passed which specifically designate one party to the document as being the customer and the other as being the entity furnishing a particular service to that customer. A third party contract, necessarily, is thus precluded from the language considered as applying to service level agreements. 

 

 

Subjects for Service Level Agreements

 

 

Some of the functions which might be covered under service level agreements can be expected to comprise categories such as:

 

 

    Priority

 

 

    Obligation

 

 

    Guarantee

 

 

    Warranty

 

 

Different Service Level Agreement Types

 

 

A service level agreement might potentially comprise customer-based, service-based, multi-level, corporate-level, customer-level, and service-level service level agreements, as legal measures commonly applicable in such cases. 

An end user license agreement, often referred simply as EULA for short, is a license that is included with most types of computer software. The end user license agreement essentially grants the end user, or buyer of the software, the right to use that particular software in a particular way. The end user license agreement is therefore a legally binding contract between the end user, or consumer, who will agree to specific terms of use and regulations imposed by the software company or producer, and the maker of that software. 

The contract will oftentimes be presented in paper form, though the common practice has been to introduce the end user license agreement in the software itself, which will appear the first time the software is loaded into a particular computer prompting the end user to read and agree to the terms of using the particular product. The end user license agreement is provided by the software companies themselves, which does not require the end user to have to procure any kind of document as a contingency.

A non-compete agreement is a type of agreement contract created by employers, which prohibits employees from being employed by competitors or similar companies. Prior to working for a company, an individual may be required to sign a non-compete agreement. 

This agreement will usually outline how long the agreement lasts and to what geographical location the agreement applies. After an individual signs a non-compete agreement, he/she will not be permitted to work for competitors of the company.

There has been an extensive amount of debate surrounding non-compete agreements. For example, it prohibits an individual from seeking employment in a field that he/she has experience in, thereby significantly limiting his/her employment opportunities. These agreements are also very difficult to enforce. 

An employer would need to know where his/her past employees were seeking employment, and subsequently take the legal action necessary to prevent them from being employed in these locations.

Despite the many concerns regarding non-compete agreements and the flaws associated with this type of contract, there are practical reasons for using them. For example, some companies maintain confidential client lists to which employees have access. In addition to these customer lists, employees also have access to marketing strategies, new products, and additional confidential information. If a former employee chooses to acquire employment with a competitor, he/she may reveal this information, thereby adversely impacting a company.

A non-compete agreement is considered to be a legally binding contract, as long as the conditions outlined within the agreement are reasonable. 

Legal Context for Executive Agreements

 

 

Despite the name, an executive agreement is not meaningfully an aspect of contract law, at least according to the terms and conditions through which this legal category is usually understood, but rather of Constitutional law. More specifically, the “executive agreement” concept in U.S. law pertains to such varied matters as the ability to exercise control over the foreign policy of the country; more specifically in terms of its relationship to other nations through treaties and other documents and mechanisms and to the separation of powers between the different branches of the Federal U.S. Government.

 

 

This last concept constitutes a primary consideration undertaken by the U.S. Constitution, and accordingly applicable to the theories and debates as continue to this day, over the application of the United States’ foundational and essential, yet broad and ambiguous, document. 

 

 

Application of Executive Agreements in U.S. Law

 

 

To further illuminate these points, it might be noted that an executive agreement is a treaty passed by the President of the United States with the government of another national jurisdiction and without the consent of the legislature of the United States. Presidents are said to have used the so-called “discretion” vested in their office when they make the determination of enacting an executive agreement and thus bypassing the necessity of relying upon the power of Congress. Moreover, an executive agreement could applicably be contrasted with a legislative-executive agreement. 

An agreement is the second essential step in creating a contract. A formal contract is now recognized by the signing of a contract. In an informal contract, which is a contract when signatures are not exchanged, acceptance is demonstrated by the actions of the two parties. In a bilateral contract, agreement occurs when the two parties accept the obligations placed on them. When a unilateral contract is in effect, agreement occurs when the offeree completes the action requested by the offeror.

The “meeting of the minds” as a standard for recognizing agreement has fallen out of favor due to the recognition that a court cannot assume to know what is within the mind of any individual. As a result, the court cannot possibly interpret the intentions of any party to a contract at the time they enter into the contract.

There are three tests which the courts use to determine if an essential element of a contract is missing. The first standard that the courts have adopted is the “reasonable person test.” The reasonable person test is designed to guard against any agreement which would be detrimental to the person agreeing to the contract. 

When there are elements missing from a contract that is presented before the courts in dispute, the courts employs an “officious bystander test,” which states that terms can be added to a contract in the event that the terms would have been accepted by the parties if only they had been suggested during the negotiations. 

The “business efficacy rule” states that a rule can be implied in the event that it would be included by any reasonable businessman in an attempt to make their businesses run more efficiently. The business efficacy rule only allows the courts to add the simplest terms which would lead to increased efficacy.

A Marital Settlement Agreement is a kind of contract which can be drawn up by the two primary parties to the legal action of a marital divorce, as provides for the settlement of the various rights, privileges, and responsibilities held by the two individuals without the necessity of further litigation or adjudication.

U.S. divorce laws are, for the most part, formulated and carried out on a state-by-state basis. Thus, the particular Marital Settlement Agreement drawn up in reference to a particular marriage should refer to the applicable laws of that specific jurisdiction and provide against the possibility of provisions which cannot legally go into effect in that particular state.

A Marital Settlement Agreement, as will generally be entered into with the assistance of legal counsel separately retained by both of the parties to the divorce, can most effectively proceed by providing for all of the potentially legally relevant aspects of the legal relationship between the two individuals.

A Marital Settlement Agreement does not itself provide for the legal effectiveness of the severing of the legal relationship between the two parties signatory to the contract in the form of a divorce, nor does it enact the initiation of the legal process of the court considering and potentially approving the rightness of such a legal motion. Often Marital Settlement contracts are drawn up as preambles to entering into an amicable divorce.

In order to understand the difference between a contractor agreement and a subcontractor agreement, it is first important to understand the difference between a contractor and a subcontractor. In many instances, a business will hire a contractor to complete certain tasks or duties.

 

 

A contractor is not considered to be an employee. Instead, a contractor will act as an independent entity, performing certain tasks for the company. A contractor agreement is an agreement that exists between a company and a contractor that the company hires. This agreement will be documented in written form. 

 

 

The document will outline all pertinent features of the agreement, including the tasks that are to be completed by the contractor, the time period that the contractor has to complete these tasks, and the compensation that the contractor will receive for his/her work. 

 

 

In order to successfully complete the tasks outlined in a contractor agreement, a contractor may be required to hire a subcontractor. A subcontractor is an individual who is hired by a contractor to provide the contractor with goods or services necessary to complete the tasks specified in an existing agreement. A subcontractor will be hired by a contractor after the contractor has been hired by a company.

 

 

 

A subcontractor agreement usually exists between a contractor and a subcontractor. It outlines information similar to the conditions detailed in a contractor agreement. In most instances, the contractor will be responsible for compensating the subcontractor and the subcontractor is required to complete certain tasks for the contractor. Both a contractor and subcontractor work together to complete specified duties for a company or an individual.