Facebook
Home Contract Law

Contract Law

Quick Blurb on Contract Laws

Quick Blurb on Contract Laws

Contract law is the legal
specialty that addresses the creation and execution of contracts. The rules and
regulations established in contract law indicate that a contract is a legally
binding document. Therefore, once a contract is signed by all participating
parties, these individuals are legally obligated to adhere to the conditions
outlined in the contract.

Following the authorization of
the contract, a participating party cannot choose to alter the contract. The
terms and conditions of the contract can only be altered or modified if all
parties agree to the changes. In the event that this occurs, a new contract
will need to be created. 

The new contract will detail any modifications made to
the original contract. However, if one participating party opposed the alteration
of the original contract, then the contract cannot be modified. The party who
wanted to alter the contract conditions will be required to adhere to the terms
of the original contract.

 

Important Facts to Know When Refusing To Sign A Contract

Important Facts to Know When Refusing To Sign A Contract

Contact law encompasses a variety of types of contacts. In many cases, the rules and laws apply to all contracts. However, there are some specific laws which only apply to certain contracts.
For example, if an individual refuses to sign an updated contract, the repercussions would depend on the type of contract. In some cases, there is no recourse if individuals refuse to sign an updated contract, and the other party could in fact be charged with breach of contract if they refuse to honor the old contract.
For example, employers that distribute a new contract may request that all employees sign it. If an employee refuses to do so, they are still under the old contract. If that employee were terminated based on the new contract, the employer could be charged with breach of contract for the original contract.
 

Government Files Lawsuit against Fluor Companies

Government Files Lawsuit against Fluor Companies


On November 8, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that the United States government is intervening in a case against Fluor Corporation and its subsidiary, Fluor Hanford Inc, after the Texas-based companies used federal funds for lobbying activity.  The lawsuit for violations of the False Claims Act was first filed by a whistleblower, Loydene Rambo.  


According to the Justice Department, Fluor had a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) for multiple services at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State between 1999 and 2008.  The facility is federally funded.  


According to the original complaint, part of the DOE contract stated that Fluor could not use the federal funds for lobbying.  The whistle blower’s complaint alleged that Fluor used the funds for lobbying from 2005 to 2008 anyway.  The company hired two lobbying firms, Secure Horizons LLC and Congressional Strategies LLC, to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies.  


The United States has agreed to intervene in the case against Fluor, but the government will not intervene in cases against Secure Horizons LLC and Congressional Strategies LLC.  Since Ms. Rambo filed the lawsuit under the False Claims Act, she can share a percentage of the recovery with the United States government.  


Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, stated: “The taxpayer money Congress allocated for this program was for training federal emergency response personnel and first responders, not to lobby Congress and other for more funding.  When public funds are misused, as alleged in this case, the Justice Department will work to restore them to the Treasury.”


The Civil Division of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington are handling the case and receiving assistance from the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.  


Source: U.S. Department of Justice
 

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.

 

Promissory Estoppel Overview

Promissory Estoppel Overview

What is Promissory Estoppel?
In a general sense, Promissory Estoppel is a legal doctrine used in American law, which allows a party to recover on a promise, even if the promise was made without a formal consideration. In essence, a Promissory Estoppel prevents an individual from arguing that an underlying promise offered should not be upheld.
In addition, a Promissory Estoppel requires that a reliance on the promise was deemed reasonable and that the individual attempting to enforce the promise actually relied on the promise to his or her detriment. As is common with numerous forms of legality issues, the precise legal requirements needed to enact Promissory Estoppel may vary between jurisdictions within the United States.
A common example of Promissory Estoppel is where an employer offers an oral promise to pay an employee a monthly amount for the remainder of the individual’s retirement. If the employee relies on the promise and subsequently retires, the employer will likely be estopped, based on the principle of a promissory estoppel, from reneging on this promise to offer the monthly retirement payment.
Laws surrounding a Promissory Estoppel:
In a typical case of a promise or a contract, the law requires that a party receive consideration for the agreement. Consideration refers to a valuable asset that is exchanged between the two parties and the time of the agreement or the promise was made. Consideration can take the form of an asset, the exchange of monies, or the promise to refrain from doing something. Regardless of the form of consideration required in a contract, a consideration is needed in order to make an agreement or promise legally enforceable.
That being said, because the court system aims to achieve fairness, a legal forum will apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel in situations where a consideration is made. Even if an enforceable contract is not generated, the law may enforce the promise if a reasonable reliance and detriment are proven.
Differences between the Promissory Estoppel Doctrine and the Doctrine of Estoppel:
A promissory estoppel relies on a promise, while the doctrine of estoppel relies on a statement of fact. As a result of this foundational difference, the two doctrines complicate contractual agreements or the statement of a promise. Even if an agreement is not based on a formal consideration and even if promissory estoppel is not enforceable, because the situation did not include a promise, a court system can still enforce the “agreement” as a means to promote fairness.
This somewhat loose interpretation of promissory estoppel enables the court to impose obligations on the parties through the delivery of a quasi-contract—a doctrine that implied in law.

Contract In Depth

Contract In Depth

A contract is a legal document which may be enforceable by legal action or by binding arbitration. In order for this to be true, however, the contract agreement must meet several important requirements. 
There must be a compensatory remedy for the contract under which the party which defaults is required to pay monetary compensation that would have otherwise been provided had the contract agreement been upheld, or an equitable remedy, which can also be called Specific Performance. The equitable remedy, or specific performance, compels an individual who enters into a contract agreement to carry out the action against which they have attempted to renege on their obligation. 
In order for a contract to be valid, the contract must involve unqualified, or “mirror”, acceptance. In order for a contract agreement to be valid, all parties must have the capacity to contract, and the terms of the contract cannot be trifling, indeterminate, or impossible. In the eyes of the law, a contract cannot be entered into to compel illegal action.
Although a contract is usually written in order to compel action, a contract agreement can also be created which will prevent a person from performing an act which they have the legal capacity to perform.
If a contract agreement is breached, legal remedies may be provided to address that breach.
Contract law, the legal field that specializes in the legal disposition of contracts and contract agreements, generally adheres to the Latin motto “pacta sunt servana,” meaning “pacts [agreements] must be kept.”

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.

Definition of Designation

Definition of Designation

Designation is the term used to describe ownership one has over something. Designation is used commonly with wills and trusts. Designation of record is what the writer of the will or trust creates to submit to the court so that the court knows and understands who is in full control of the contract and the individual’s estates and assets after they have passed.
Designation of Record must be completed with the creator of the contract, the individual who will hold designation, and a lawyer. After the creator and the designator have settled on an agreement, the Designation of Record will then be signed off on and delivered to the court. Finally, the court will approve of the documents and the contract will be put into place. Generally, the contract will go into immediate effect at this point.

Simple Guide to Verbal Contracts

Simple Guide to Verbal Contracts

In the
United States, verbal contracts will usually refer to unwritten or oral
contracts. An unwritten contract will usually mean that the contract or
agreement was made through the use of spoken words as opposed to formally
writing and entering into record the provisions of said contract.

The United
States has laws that will recognize verbal contracts in a court of law and
enforce the agreed upon provisions in the case of a dispute. However, because
verbal contracts are oftentimes unwritten contracts, there will be inherent
problems involved in a legal dispute surrounding verbal contracts.

The most
common issue which arises is that verbal contracts are extremely hard to prove
to have ever actually occurred in the first place. Evidence such as witnesses
and an overall preponderance of evidence will be necessary to prove that a
party violated verbal contracts. Therefore, it can be deemed that unwritten
contracts, as opposed to formally written contracts, are not weighed as heavily
or given the same legal merit in a court of law due to the lack of actual
physical evidence of the contract.

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. 
123...5Page 1 of 5
Disclaimer: There is no confidential attorney-client relationship formed by using Laws.com website and information provided on this site is not legal advice. For legal advice, please contact your attorney. Attorneys listed on this website are not referred or endorsed by this website. By using Laws.com you agree to Laws.com Terms Of Use.
Facebook
©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Free Coupon
X