Home Contracts Page 2

Contracts

Understand the Requirements of a Contract

Understand the Requirements of a Contract

In order to form a contract, five distinct aspects must be present. The first is that there must be consideration. The offer and acceptance of contracts is often referred to as an agreement.
Consideration in a contract does not apply if the contracted act is something legal prohibited. For instance, a contract cannot be entered into if the consideration of one of the parties is to kill another person, because the killing of another person is not normally a legal right.  
Contracts can only be enforced legally if the parties involved in them are believed to have wanted the courts to become involved in them at the time the contract was created. Two parties who claim they are entering a “gentleman’s agreement” are usually not considered to have entered into a contract.    
A contract cannot be considered to be valid unless both parties to the contract have the legal capacity to enter into the contract. Legal capacity has several elements. The first is that both parties must be of sufficient age to be considered above the age of majority. While a minor may become a party to a contract, they can disaffirm any contracts they enter into at any time. In the event a minor party to a contract disaffirms the contract, the minor must forfeit any goods they received. 
Recently, minors voiding contracts have been held responsible for returning the items covered in the contract in the same State they were granted, as are adults. Of course, the minor is only responsible for returning the consideration if it is currently in their possession.
The final requirement to creating a contract is that there must be a formality to inform both parties that the contract is in effect. The formality, however, is not standardized. It may involve affixing signatures to a written contract or shaking hands to formalize a verbal contract.

Quick Contract Types Overview

Quick Contract Types Overview

There are six types of contracts, which can be broken down into three pairs of related terms. The first pair is bilateral and unilateral contracts. Bilateral and unilateral contracts are distinguished by the relationships between the offeror and offeree.
 
 
In a bilateral contract, both parties must agree to the terms of the contract before it goes into effect. In a unilateral contract, the offeror presents terms to the general public. A unilateral contract only becomes binding once a second party seeks to collect on the contract. A unilateral contract is formed if Megan puts up a poster offering a reward for her lost wallet, while a bilateral contract would be formed if Megan offered Rosemary $50 to find her wallet.
 
 
Although formal and informal contracts were both once common, informal contracts have largely replaced formal contracts. A formal contract is any contract which is required by law to take a specific form. An informal contract is any other type of contract.
 
 
An express contract is formed when both parties state what they intend to do while the contract is being formed. An implied-in-fact contract is formed by the actions of the parties. An implied contract does not require any verbal statement by the parties to be put into eff

Interpreting Contracts At A Glance

Interpreting Contracts At A Glance

One of the essential tenets of business contract law is that the terms of the contract must be one to which a When interpreting a contract there are several things that an arbiter or jury must examine. The first is to determine the intention of the parties to the contract. There are many ways to do so including the plain-meaning-rule.
When determining intent, the judgment must conform itself to the intent of the parties and must be alert to times when the parties’ intents deviate from the what would normally be expected. An interpretation must also seek to not reward fraudulent intentions which may have been held by a party to the contract.

All You Need to Know About Partnerships

All You Need to Know About Partnerships

There are two forms of partnerships: a general and a limited type. Both of these are subject to special authorizations when undergoing a contractual process. In a general partnership, in order to complete a general contract, all partners must consent. The contractual processes may be handled and performed by a separate entity, if hired to do so, on their behalf.
A review of partnership agreements is a necessity in order to ensure that each agreement was valid if all the members’ consents were not given. A partnership is formed with two or more people who are looking to earn a profit. Within the partnership, there is a superior partner, who has more liability than the other partners due to their co-signing or amount of investment put forth.  
The Uniform Partnership Act establishes rules and standards for partnerships, A partnership is not a taxpaying entity; it is a tax reporting entity, forming a pass-through taxation which is a key perk. There is a joint liability amongst all the partners for their partnership’s obligations. 
In a limited partnership, there are also two types of partners: limited and general. The limited partners have just as much authority in most cases, but they lack the authority to override decisions and commit agreements on behalf of the partnership without the consent of the general partners. The limited partners also have limited liability, where they are not as liable as general partners. Thus, the main decision-making is in the hands of the general partners.
General contracts need to be approved and agreed upon by all general partners. Approval is also needed from limited partners in a majority of the agreements, unless they are not present. General contract review is necessary at the end of each quarter in order to ensure that each agreement was done not only legally, but also with the approval of the general partners.
If a general contract is not approved by a general partner due to their absence, those general contracts are also overlooked at the end of the quarter in order to make sure that the general contracts were agreed upon by the other general partners within the partnership.
General partners owe more liability to the partnership either because they were appointed as a general partner, they had put up more of an investment, they have more capital in which the other partners stay protected, or because they are more experienced and the partnership revolves around their expertise.
General contracts are to be signed by majority of the partners, all of them if possible. If there is a debate to whether a general contract should be signed, it goes into a voting system in which the limited partners’ votes may count as 1 vote, while the general partners may count as 1 1/2 or 2 votes each. This method is designed to maintain an equilibrium within the partnership and to ensure that the partners with more expertise have more of a leverage when it comes to voting on general contracts.

Appropriation

Appropriation

The Prior Appropriation Doctrine has been created in order to meet the needs of western and arid states. An arid State refers to a State which has insufficient water supply or lack of rain. This Doctrine caters on a first come first serve basis, meaning whoever makes use of the water first has the superior right to the water. All appropriation laws are not similar when going from State to State, as each varies based on the demand and what the State deems as beneficial use of the water.

Expropriation is the taking away or surrendering of the permit or right an owner has to the usage of water. This usually occurs when an owner violates regulations or breaches his contract of what is stated on the permit. Overall, the Government has put its own regulations on bodies of water, but makes sure to leave room for flexibility so that the states could apply the rules according to their needs.  

Quick Guide to Understanding Contracts for Difference

Quick Guide to Understanding Contracts for Difference

Contracts for difference are a financial agreement between two parties that are in the midst of purchasing and selling an asset. A contract for difference is agreed upon between two parties; the parties in the agreement are appropriately labeled as “buyers” and “sellers”. In a contract for difference, the two parties agree that the seller will pay the buyer the difference between the current value of the asset in question over a specific time frame that the contract stipulates.


In essence, contracts for difference are financial derivatives that enable investors to take advantage of price fluctuations typically found in assets such as stocks. If stock prices are moving up or trending downwards, the underlying financial instruments associated with the fluctuations, under a contract for difference, enables the two parties to agree on the difference of valuation for the stocks of the financial instruments over a specified period of time. 


As a result of its function, a contract for difference allows an investor to speculate the overall movement of the market, and more specifically the price fluctuations of the underlying investments offered in the contract. If the difference in price of the underlying asset is negative, the buyer will instead pay the seller. 


When a contract for difference is applied to an equity, for example, the contract enables the investor to speculate on the price of the stock and the movements associated without actually owning shares in the equity.

In Depth Overview of Principal

In Depth Overview of Principal

When an individual receives the authority to act on behalf of another, they are known as principal agents. A principal gives the authority, by way of investment or contract, to the principal agent. A contract is arranged in order to set up the guidelines on how the agent acts on behalf of the principal.

An example of a principal-agent relationship is how the shareholders of a corporation are investing within the entity, while the entity performs its duties of raising profits and becoming more productive. The principal in this situation are the shareholders, and the corporation acts as the principal agent. The shareholders may cancel the contract at any time, but while they are the principals, they elect officials within the corporation through a voting system which they have been given the right to do. 

An issue may occur based on the conflict of interest between the two parties. An example being, if the corporation needs to take one route for its benefit, and at the same time, the stock of the corporation may go down, which negatively affects the interests of the shareholders.

There is no set goal on which the principal may be satisfied since they are hiring an agent in order to do what they specialize in. The agent in this case is to perform to his or her maximum ability in order to satisfy the principal. The only way the principal may feel dissatisfaction is if their interest within the agent depreciates.

A principal agent has a fiduciary duty towards the principal. The duties of an agent include the following: (1) To perform the tasks specified within the terms of the contract to the best of their ability, while the principal agents do not have the authority to perform acts on behalf of the principal that are not stated within the agreement; (2) An obligation to relieve his obligations with due diligence and care; (3) The duty of avoiding any conflict of interest, not only between the two parties specified in the contract, but also any conflict which they may incur even though it is not stated within the agreement.

A principal agent is not to perform any additional duties which may conflict with a prior obligation to which he or she has committed. The main issue within the principal agent relationship directly involves the lack of full disclosure. The principal has the duty to update the agent on any information which relates to the transaction or the tasks the agent has on hand. The agent must do the same, and the agent has an extra obligation of not increasing his interest without increasing the principal’s. If an agent is acting on behalf of a principal, the agent must make sure the increase in interest between the two is relative.

All You Need to Know About Common Law Governance of Contracts

All You Need to Know About Common Law Governance of Contracts

Contract law is based in three different areas. The first, and rarer, basis for contract law is a specific statute governing a contract. The second area is the Uniform Commercial Code. The more pervasive foundation of contract law is common law. Common law is not written down or codified in any particular place. Common law is instead the tradition of law in a particular jurisdiction.
Common law as it reflects on contract law is influenced by the findings of British common law in effect at the time of the American Revolution in 1775. The common law decisions that have been handed down by individual states since British common law ceased to be the governing principle of the location and any relevant finding by a Federal judge.
Common law is a general term for any legal precedent that is taken from a judge’s individual ruling. The main statute which provides the foundation of English common law is based on the interpretation of the 1677 Statute of Frauds. It has been incorporated into the common law heritage of all fifty states in the United States at some point.
The main concern in a common law system regarding contracts is if one party is allowed to sue another person. Contract law in a common law system calls this idea the concept of privity of contract. In contract law, privity answers the question of whether an individual party has the legal standing to sue another party, as well as what the responsibility is of the party being sued. Privity in contract law says that rights cannot be extended to an individual who has not entered into the contract in question, and that a third party not involved in the contract has no liability for the terms of the contract.
Privity is a complicated but essential aspect in contract law in common law systems. The 1968 English case of Beswick v. Beswick examines the complications when two parties enter into a contract to provide for the welfare of a third party. The elderly Mr. Beswick and his nephew created a contract in which Mr. Beswick sold his company to his nephew. One of the terms of the contract was that Mr. Beswick’s would-be widow, Mrs. Beswick, be provided with stipend after Mr. Beswick’s death.
The nephew agreed to the contract, but after the death of his uncle declined to provide the stipend. The nephew claimed he was under no obligation to provide the stipend because his aunt had not been involved in the original contract. The court in this case upheld the nephew’s contention. However, because Mrs. Beswick was the administrix of his estate, and thus a party to the contract because the estate maintained an interest in the contract he was still compelled to uphold the terms of the contract.
Outside of circumstances such as that in Beswick v. Beswick where the third party assumes the interests in one of the original parties, the only other time a third party can become directly involved in a contract under the concept of privity inherent in a common law system is when one of the original parties to the contract has been acting on behalf of the third party from the beginning.
For instance, John is working for Joe. Joe and Jack enter into a contract. John would then be able to compel Jack to fulfill the contract because the duties in a contract can be transferred. If Joe were not working for John, John would be unable to force Jack to complete the contract.

What are the Objective Theory of Contracts

What are the Objective Theory of Contracts

Reasonable outside observer would adhere. The law of contract prohibits the enforcement of contracts that appear to be too good to be true. Business contract law serves to prevent outrageous claims from being enforced. This interpretation of the law of contracts is known as the Objective Theory of Contracts.
The Objective Theory prevents the interpretations of any law of contract from enforcing ridiculously out-sized claims in advertisements as the offer of a contract. The most famous example of this in business contract law is the Pepsi Harrier Jet case. In a 1995 TV commercial Pepsi offered a Harrier jet as a reward for its Pepsi points customer give away. 
The ad said that the jet could be obtained for 7 million points. While the main method of obtaining Pepsi points was to drink Pepsi brand soda and redeem points from bottle caps, the company also allowed points to be purchased for ten cents each. John Leonard thought he saw a brilliant business opportunity.
The normal cost to obtain a Harrier jet was in excess of $23 million dollars. If Leonard bought all the points he would have needed to redeem for the jet it would cost him just $700,000. After raising money from friends and family, Leonard bought 7 million Pepsi points. 
Attempting to enforce what he thought was a valid law of contract, he sent the 7 million points he had purchased, as well as 15 Points he had obtained from other means, and an order form on which he demanded that Pepsi supply him with a Harrier jet.
In response, the company wrote him a letter giving him free coupons and a letter which claimed that business contract law did not oblige the company to provide the jet because it was obviously an outlandish claim, meant to be humorous and entertaining. Leonard took Pepsi to court, claiming that the advertisement of a Harrier jet for the 7 million Pepsi points he had purchased was a valid offer. 
Leonard said that when Pepsi did not reward him with the jet it had violated the law of contract. He claimed that by mailing in the points he had accepted their offer, the 7 million points were his consideration, and that the jet constituted Pepsi’s consideration. 
In rejecting Leonard’s claim, the judge laid out the Objective Theory of Contracts succinctly. The judge ruled that business contract law had not been violated because “no objective person” could have believed in good faith that the offer was serious. 
Due to the outrageous nature of the advertisement, the law of contract was determined to not have been violated. Business contract law is bound by a reasonable person test, that is, would a reasonable person examining the contract determine that the terms of the contract were realistic.

Attorneys, Get Listed

X