A cohabitation agreement is a type of legal contract that exists between two individuals who live together. This type of legal agreement functions to ensure that a couple residing within the same home are protected from legal proceedings and costs if they choose to separate in the future. A cohabitation agreement will detail the rights and responsibilities of both parties.

In many ways, this type of agreement is similar to a prenuptial agreement. It will detail the financial responsibilities of each individual. For example, a cohabitation agreement may indicate that each party is responsible for contributing equally to the financial responsibilities that arise throughout the duration of their cohabitation. These costs may include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, and groceries, just to name a few.

In addition, a cohabitation agreement will detail how property is to be divided in the event that the couple separates. This contract will list which assets are to be designated to each individual upon separation. This agreement is particularly important when considering assets that were purchased by both parties jointly.

Other factors that may be covered in a cohabitation agreement include the financial and personal responsibilities of caring for any existing children and the responsibilities of each party in regard to addressing debt.

Many couples who decide to live together do not consider a cohabitation agreement. However, this contract is important to ensure that the rights of each party are upheld in the event of an unforeseen separation.

A trade agreement is a type of agreement that exists between two or more countries in order to govern the trading procedures that exist between these states. Within the domain of international trade, there are a range of tariffs and prohibitions which limit trade between certain countries.

 

 

Trade agreements can function to counteract these barriers and promote trade between these countries. Limiting trade barriers is advantageous for the United States economy, as it allows for the exportation of more goods. It also helps to benefit participating countries, as the United States can import an increased quantity of goods from these countries, and subsequently sell these goods within the United States. The details of a free trade agreement will vary from one agreement to another. 

 

 

Currently, the United States is engaged in a free trade agreement with a number of different countries. For example, the U.S. has established a free trade agreement with Australia, Jordan, Panama, South Korea, and Singapore, just to name a few.

 

 

Perhaps the most widely known of the existing free trade agreements is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement that exists between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The initial stages of the agreement occurred between the United States and Canada, and subsequently, Mexico entered into the contract. NAFTA limits the trade barriers that existed between these three countries and encourages open trade.

There are several circumstances under which an agreement or an offer may be terminated. The first way to terminate an offer is to attempt to change the offer. Any attempt to change an offer is known as a counter-offer. A counter-offer is a termination of an offer by the offeree. If a counter-offer is presented and subsequently rejected, the execution of the original offer cannot be compelled by a court of law. Unless the counter-offer contains a provision specifically authorizing it, any previous offer becomes invalidated.

 

 

An offeror may terminate an offer if the offer contains a time period during which the offer must be accepted. If the offer does not contain a time period after which the offer becomes invalidated, then the courts commonly hold that the offer is invalid after a "reasonable" amount of time, but never specifically states what that time period is. In the event an offeror rescinds the period of time for which they had previously agreed to keep an offer open, the offeree can sue for breach of contract.

 

 

Contract negotiations are often lengthy processes. If during the negotiations one of the parties discovers that the information being discussed in the negotiations is substantively different than as presented during the negotiation process but fails to disclose this information, it may serve as grounds to invalidate the other party's 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.

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 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 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.

A loan agreement can be noted in the overall context of contract law as a specific form which might be taken by the overall document of a contract, both in terms of the subject designated by a contract taking this particular form, as well as in the implied legal entities to be involved in such a legal agreement. 

A loan agreement, which might or might not also be referred to as a credit agreement, can thus be noted as an agreement between a lender and lendee as to the conditions under which the loan is granted and the obligations which the lendee agrees to take on and grant legal force toward his, her, or their obligation to the lender. 

Some of the conditions, as referenced above, as might conceivably be applied for by the creation of a loan agreement could include the date by which the loan granted must be returned in full to the lender, or the interest which will be made necessarily payable to the lender at regular increments and at set amounts. 

Loan agreements are typically distinguished in terms of being sorted between bilateral and syndicated loans, which refers to the specific type of lender furnishing the loan to the lendee. They may also be distinguished in terms of the facility involved, between term and revolving loans. Further areas for differentiation include secured/unsecured and fixed-/floating interest loans.