Home Contract Law

Contract Law

Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means

Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means

One of the essential tenets of contract law is that in order for a legal and valid contract to be formed in the eyes of the courts, there must be a “meeting of the minds” between the parties forming the contract. The parties to the contract can be individuals, or a legal entity can be entered into a contract by an official in a position of power in the legal entity.
However, establishing the existence of a meeting of the minds is very difficult for the courts to determine. If there is any dispute about the terms of a contract before a meeting of the minds develops, the courts will show a preference to interpret the terms of the contract in a way which does the least harm or damage to all the parties involved.
A meeting of the minds may also be found to not exist if the contract fails a “reasonable man” test. The reasonable man test is that a normal person with the range of knowledge that a person of a similar background to the person disputing some or all of the terms of the contract, would have reasonably interpreted the contract in a particular manner. The reasonable man test can be influenced by the specific individuals who are involved in the contract at issue.

What are the Legal Actions To Take Against A Breached Trust

What are the Legal Actions To Take Against A Breached Trust

A breach of trust can occur in any number of circumstances, and in
each case there may be a differing form of legal recourse. When the breach of
trust is included with a breach of contract, there may be both legal and civil
penalties. 

 

For example, if there is a breach of contract between a day care
center and a parent, it may also include a breach of trust. If the day care
center took responsibility to care for a child and then failed to do so, they
may be charged with both breach of contract and breach of trust.

 

The result of those activities may influence whether or not the
charges are criminal or civil. If, for example, the child was injured because
of a failure to care for that child as promised, the charges would likely be
civil and criminal.

 

What You Must Know About Withholding Employee Wages

What You Must Know About Withholding Employee Wages

Employers are
legally allowed to withhold employee wages when state, local, or Federal law
requires them to do so. The Federal law of the United States actually requires
employers to withhold wages to satisfy payroll tax requirements administered
through the Internal Revenue Service.

The payroll
tax requirements are used to fund Federal income tax, Medicare tax, and Social
Security tax. If an employer did not withhold employee wages, there would be no
way to fund such programs or levies. In addition, if local law requires it, the
employer is also required to withhold wages for state taxation. 

As a result of the tax responsibilities, all
employers withhold a certain percentage of an employee’s wages. That being
said, employers are not allowed to withhold wages for any circumstance that is
not aligned with taxation or funding company programs or benefits. Withholding
wages without reason is illegal under United States employment law.

All You Need to Know About Restatement of Contracts

All You Need to Know About Restatement of Contracts

The Restatement of Contracts is one of the most widely recognized and most frequently cited legal treatises that is part of jurisprudence in the United States of America. It is taught to most American law students during the first year of law school. It is the most-cited non-binding authority in common law in the United States.
The Restatement of Contracts is a peerless work in terms of overall influence and recognition among individuals on both the bar and the bench. The only possible rival for its recognition is the Restatement of Torts. The Second Edition of the Restatement of Contracts was begun in 1962, with the American Law Institute completing its compilation in 1979.
The general purpose of a restatement of the law is to allow judges and lawyers to have a general understanding of a set of treatises on legal subjects. The Restatement of Contracts allows individuals to have a general understanding of the principles of contract law. The Restatements of Contracts is one of the twenty three Restatements compiled by the American Law Institute.
The Restatement of Contracts is not legally binding, but it carries a great deal of weight and is highly persuasive because it represents the thoughts of prominent legal professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. The Restatement of Contracts is a reflective consensus reached by the American legal system and professionals, both of what the law is and, in rare cases, what the law should be.

What Does Without Recourse Mean

What Does Without Recourse Mean

Without recourse is a legal
phrase used by an endorser of a negotiable instrument to signify that if the
payment of the instrument is denied or refused, the endorser will not be held
responsible.
 An
endorser is an individual who signs a document that didn’t originally make it.


The negotiable instruments involved with this
definition typically refer to business or personal checks or promissory notes.
An individual who endorses such an instrument will attach the phrase
“without recourse” to specifically decline the responsibility of
payment. Through the incorporation of this phrase, the endorser declines
responsibility by virtue of the endorsement and becomes merely the assignor of
the title to the negotiable instrument.


The without recourse clause is governed by the
broader laws associated with the distribution of Commercial paper, which is
codified through the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States Federal
Government. As a result, a without recourse attachment will be honored by all
courts assuming basic requirements are met.

Privity of Contract Explained

Privity of Contract Explained

Privity of contract is a legal
doctrine that holds that a business contract, along with any other type of
contract, may not confer rights or impose obligations to any person or agent
except for the specific parties that have formed the contract.

Privity of contract is most
commonly an issue which arises during business contracts that have been formed
to allow for the sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity of contract
becomes an issue when the benefits bestowed by a contract are given to a third
party or a party that was not a part of the original contract. Vertical privity
of contract involves an independent contract that develops between one signer
of the original contract and another individual or other legal entity.

There are certain circumstances
under which privity of contract may be set aside which will allow the legal
entity who is not directly a part of the business contract to be allowed to sue
to force a party to the original contract to uphold their obligations. Privity
of contract will only allow a third party to the contract to go against one of
the original parties to the contract beyond the ability to collect the third
party’s entitlement to a benefit under the contract.

Make Sure You Know the Basic Principles of Law of Contract

Make Sure You Know the Basic Principles of Law of Contract

What is the Law of Contract?
As is common with the majority of legal principles, the basic fundamentals of contract law will vary by jurisdictions throughout the United States. In all jurisdictions; however, a contract must require an offer, a subsequent acceptance or agreement to the stipulations within the contract, and consideration.
These characteristics are in essence, the foundation for a document to be regarded as a legally binding and valid contract.
 
Basic Principles of the Law of Contract:
The law of contract states that the first step required to form a valid contract is that an offer must be formally made by one of the parties to another. A common example to elucidate upon this principle is found in the sale of property; the purchaser, in this example, must make an offer to purchase the underlying property. This offer may include simplistic or complex terms, but it must be concrete and affirmed through written documentation.
Following the offer, the contract, as stated by the law of contract, must be accepted by the offered party. Using the sale of property as an example, the seller must affirmatively accept the offer; the original offer may be accepted in a written or spoken form.
If the offered party proposes a counteroffer, an acceptance is not realized. When a court determines whether or not an offer and acceptance was realized, the judicial body using the law of contract will look for a formal meeting or a concurrence of wills to decide if the requirements latent in the offer and acceptance statutes of the law of contract had been satisfied.
Lastly, the basic principles of the law of contract will require consideration to be given for the contract to maintain a legal or valid status. Consideration simply means that something of value was exchanged between the agreeing parties. In most instances, the consideration takes the form of money or an asset that holds considerable value.
In some scenarios; however, consideration can take the form of refraining from performing a function or doing something that the party is otherwise entitled to initiate. Regardless of the form, the consideration given must be sufficient, but does not need to be adequate to validate the stipulations latent in the contract.
 
Court Evaluations of a Contractual Agreement:
 
In addition to the basic principles of the law of contract, a court system, when evaluating the validity of a contractual agreement will evaluate the capacity of the party’s when the agreement was reached. The capacity to enter into a contract may be affected by numerous factors; for instance, minors do not possess the legal capacity to enter into a contract. In addition, a person’s mental state may also be considered when evaluating whether the person had the capacity or ability to enter into a valid contract.
Numerous courts will look to the legality of a contract when determining its validity. If a contract requires an individual to do something illegal, it will be deemed void on its face.

Verbal Contract V. Written Contract

Verbal Contract V. Written Contract

Contract law in the legal context of the United States generally allows for a contract which is called into being by the exchange of verbal expressions to be as valid as one which is set forth in writing. This general provision for a verbal contract may, however, be modified in certain jurisdictions by specific contract law requirements for a contract to be set down in specific circumstances and toward specific ends. Moreover, contract law for an area may or may not provide for the difficulties which can arise in carrying out a verbal contract. 
The lack of a written contract can present problems in terms of the lack of proof as to what was agreed to under contract law. As such, judges administering contract law may be forced to apply a standard of fairness in order to resolve the contract dispute. In this way, a verbal contract, while valid, may not be effective.

Important Facts About Breach of Contract

Important Facts About Breach of Contract

What is a Breach of Contract?
A breach of contract occurs when a party, who agreed to formulate a contractual obligation with another party, does not carry out the intended function of the contract. As a result, a breach of contract is a legal cause of action where the binding agreement latent in the contract, is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract. 
A breach of contract can result in an individual not carrying-out a specific performance that was expected by the contract or by interfering with the other party’s ability to perform the task. 
If a party, who agreed to formulate a contract with another party, does not fulfill his or her contractual promise or has given information to the other party that he or she will not perform his expected duty as labeled in the contract, the party is said to have performed a breach of contract. In addition, if the individual is unable to perform the obligations latent in the contract for whatever reason, a breach of contract is present. 

Types of Breaches:
Minor Breach of Contract: A minor breach of contract constitutes a party’s inability to perform the full task expected by the contract; a minor breach of contract is referred to as an immaterial or partial breach of contract. In these instances, the non-breaching party cannot sue for specific performance, and can only seek legal action for actual damages sustained. 
Material Breach of Contract: A material breach of contract is realized through any failure to perform, which ultimately permits the other party to the contract to collect damages because of the breach or compel performance. 
Fundamental Breach of Contract: A fundamental breach of contract is a breach that permits the aggrieved party to terminate performance of the formulated contract. In these scenarios, the non-breaching party is entitled to sue the breaching party for damages sustained. 
Anticipatory Breach of Contract: A breach of contract through anticipatory repudiation is an unequivocal indication that the party refuses to undertake the project or deliver performance as stipulated in the contract. Included in this type of breach, is a situation where a future non-performance is inevitable. This type of breach of contract allows the non-breaching party the option to treat the breach as immediate, which ultimately allows them to terminate the contract and sue for damages, without waiting for the actual breach to take place. 

Remedies of a Breach of Contract:

In most instances, the judicial remedy for a breach of contract is the delivery of monetary compensation for damages incurred. If the failure to perform or satisfy the contractual obligation cannot be redressed through monetary compensation, the underlying court may enter an equity decree, which will award an injunction or the delivery of a specific performance. 
The aggrieved person possesses the obligation to mitigate damages through reasonable means. In the United States, under contract law, punitive damages are typically not awarded for a breach of contract but may be awarded for other causes of action in a lawsuit. 

Understanding Promissory Estoppel

Understanding Promissory Estoppel

  
Promissory estoppel is one of the broad categories of reliance-based estoppels. Promissory estoppel is differentiated from the other two forms of reliance-based estoppel, estoppel by representation of fact and proprietary estoppel, in that promissory estoppel applies where one person makes a promise to another person, but there is no contract that can be enforced to make the person carry out the promised action.


In order for promissory estoppel to apply, the party that has been victimized must prove in court that there was both an inducement and a detrimental reliance. In other words, there has to be evidence that one party intended for the victim to act on the promise or representation, or the victim must satisfy the court that their actions were a reasonable response to the relevant promise or representation. 


The victim must also show that the actions that the victim engaged in were either reasonable or were the intended response to the representation made, and that the victim would suffer a loss or detriment at the current moment  in the event the other party were permitted to be released from the assumed obligation. For the courts to find that promissory estoppel applies it must be shown that it would be unconscionable to allow the party to benefit from their actions.


Promissory estoppel and estoppel by representation of fact are mutually exclusive concepts. Estoppel by representation of fact is based on a representation of some mixture of law and fact, while promissory estoppel is based on a promise to fail to exercise a previously existing right.

Attorneys, Get Listed

X