Facebook
Home Contracts Page 2

Contracts

Easy Uniform Commercial Code Overview

Easy Uniform Commercial Code Overview

Background
The UCC, or Uniform Commercial Code, developed as an attempt to streamline business laws across different jurisdictions within the United States. The ten of the eleven Articles have been met with universal adoption.
The UCC was considered essential as a result of corporations engaging in interstate commerce more frequently throughout history. As interstate commerce proliferated, corporations complained about the fact that they were having to deal with what were sometimes radically different standards for completing a single commercial transaction. 
Articles of the UCC
There are eleven Articles which comprise the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 1 of the UCC is known as the General Provisions of the UCC, and the other Articles are: Article 2, Sales; Article 2a, Leases; Article 3, Negotiable Instruments; Article 4, Bank Deposits; Article 4a, Funds Transfers; Article 5, Letters of Credit; Article 6, Bulk Transfers and Bulk Sales; Article 7, Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lading and Other Documents of Title; Article 8, Investment Securities; and Article 9, Secured Transactions.
In 2003, Article 2 and Article 7 were modernized in a major revision, though the revisions to Article 2 have not been adopted by any states yet. Although Article 6 is considered obsolete by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, it remains in effect in many jurisdictions.
Despite being present in one document, each Article of the UCC bears only the slightest connection to any other. Most Articles bear little relevance on the others. The exception is that each Article uses terms defined in Article 1, and Article 9 covers the paperwork required to support the intermediate Articles.

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.

Easy to Read Enforcing Contracts Overview

Easy to Read Enforcing Contracts Overview

The courts can become involved in enforcing contracts in the event there is a dispute between the parties in a contract. The courts may establish that a contract is enforceable, voidable, unenforceable, or void. The court may also rule that a quasi-contract is in effect. Enforceable contracts, voidable contracts, and unenforceable contracts are all considered examples of valid contracts.
When issuing a judgment, a court may declare a contract void or valid, and may declare the ruling to apply to the contract as a whole or to just a part of the contract. If only a portion is declared void, and the remainder of the contract can still be considered valid, the contract will remain in effect.

Enforceable Contract
If the court rules that the contract is enforceable, it means that the two parties are bound by the terms of the contract to which they had previously agreed. An enforceable contract is a category of a valid contract. Enforceable contracts compel action on behalf of both parties.


Voidable Contracts
A voidable contract is a specific category of enforceable contract. A voidable contract exists when one or both of the parties has the ability to release itself from the contract without a finding of fault. A voidable clause can be specifically inserted during the drafting of a contract by either party.
Any contract involving a minor is automatically considered a voidable contract. A minor may terminate the contract within two year of reaching the age of majority. In a voidable contract only the party with the right to void the contract may file suit for breach of contract.

Unenforceable Contracts
An unenforceable is a valid contract which a legal body cannot compel one or both of the parties to fulfill the terms of because there is a statute or public policy with which the contract is in conflict.


Void Contracts

A void contract is an oxymoron. A contract that is void is a contract which could not exist in the first place. A contract may be declared void by the courts in several circumstances. If one of the parties has been adjudicated to be incompetent, the contract may be declared void. A contract undertaken to commit an illegal act will be declared void as well.


“Quasi” Contracts
Quasi-contracts are instances where two parties never specifically entered into a contract for the service in question, but a law creates an obligation for one party to provide compensation to another for services rendered.

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.

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.

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.

All You Need to Know About Corporations

All You Need to Know About Corporations

A corporation, also referred to as an invisible hand, lacks no legal capacity since authority is granted to buy and sell real property. A corporation formed through state statutes, therefore, has jurisdiction within just the state unless there is a location of the corporation within another state. Since a corporation is an entity whose operations are performed by representatives, the authority of the corporation entering the contract, is performed by the representatives themselves by signing and accepting the contract on hand. 
In order for business contracts to be validated and completed, the representatives must receive the consent of the board of directors. You will never see one representative having the authority to complete business contracts for a corporation, there are checks and balances involved due to the size and legal compliance of a corporation in deeming business contracts.
The reasoning behind such checks and balances in the contract process is due to the interest of the amount of shareholders, directors, employees, creditors, and the community that receives direct impact based on the direction a corporation leads toward. There are five defining factors of a corporation; each factor plays a unique role in the formation and advancement of the corporation. 
(1) It has separate legal characteristics, meaning representatives of the corporation may will not be subjected to anything against the corporation unless committed upon personal interests. 
(2) Limited liability of the stockholders, meaning if bankruptcy occurs, stockholders are limited to receive what they initially inputted. 
(3) Being able to transfer shares through the stock exchange, this allows shares to bought, sold, or traded on the consent of the stockholder. 
(4) There is a delegated group of managment, also known as the board of directors, whose consent is needed whenever initiating a task on behalf of the corporation. 
(5) Interest of shareholders, which gives shareholders a piece of ownership of the corporation through their investments.
When an investor owns shares within a corporation, there needs to be some sort of perk involved other than collecting dividends off their stocks, which allows for the development of a sense of importance. Shareholders not only have the rights to dividends declared by the company, but they also have voting rights when there is a survey figuring out which direction to head in or what improvements may be enacted. They also have the rights to any return of capital upon advancement or bankruptcy of the corporation itself.
All in all, a corporation consists of the highest value out of all the forms of business in our modern times. A corporation is the only form in which the representatives are completely protected from being liable on behalf of anything the corporation itself is charged with, even within the business contracts realm.
This is primarily due to the fact that there is not one sole decision maker within the firm that may enforce the contract. Each decision on behalf of the corporation involves a body of individuals which hold authority with, and against each other. This is to promote the checks and balances the corporate figures hold over each other.

Contract Law Simplified Background

Contract Law Simplified Background

Contract pacta sunt servanda, which translates to “agreements are to be kept.” The essential contract law basis is that contracts cannot violate the rights of either party to the contract.
The main contract law basis is to ensure that the contracts that parties enter into are honored by both parties. Contract law defines any agreement between two parties in which one agrees to provide something to another party in exchange for goods, services, or financial compensation as a contract.
Contract law defines most contracts as being made orally. One of the less understood or appreciated contract law basics is the idea that a purchase in a store for anything, ranging from a pack of gum to a high definition television, represents an oral contract. Contract law only prevents parties from entering into contracts that are trifling, indeterminate, or illegal.

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.
12Page 2 of 2
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