Thepromise given to Forrer,the plaintiff, by Sears,Roebuck & Co.,the defendant, was foreseeable to activate an action. The plaintiffis incorrect in stating that promissory estoppel is a legal principleand approach to seek damages from the defendant for terminating hisemployment contract at will. This is due to the fact that once theplaintiff was hired by the defendant, the promise of permanentemployment was realized but the promise was not exclusive on theemployment termination.
Thecourt was not liable to pay $25,000 to Jennings because according tothe legal system there was no Cause of Action. This was due toJennings’ free will to listen to the radio station, KSCS at his owndetriment. Furthermore, the commercial interruptions were paidcommercials by the Record Labels of the songs being played at thetime. Moreover, there were no clear stipulations of what constitutedthe term ‘commercial break’.
Employmentcontract is a binding legal document that guarantees the employerthat his or her business is secure and safe from employees how maywant to poach his or her clients. Therefore, Vodra’s claim therestrictive covenant was illegal and not binding are false since itcontradicts the essence of the employment contract he signed withAmerican Security Services. Moreover, the fact that he started acompetitive firm to challenge American Security Services, he wasstill bound by the employment contract even though he is no longer anemployee.
Thecontract was binding because the oral contract was agreed upon byboth parties Martin and Cresheim Garage. Furthermore, the letterstipulating the terms of the oral contract made by Cresheim was provethat there was tangible proof that the oral contract was inexistence. Therefore, due to the tangible proof of the letterindicating the terms of the oral contract, the oral contract becomeslegally binding.
Caswellwas not correct because the premise was leased by Zoya from Peerlesswhich means that the liability insurance used to protect the twoentities was based on the fact that all parties involved wereautomatically insured from all unforeseeable injuries andcircumstances. Hence, as an involved party in the lease agreement,Caswell is not legally required to sue any of the two parties Zoyaand Peerless.
Anassignment of a contract exists when one group of the contractdelegates all the responsibilities of the contract and benefits to asecond party, who dutifully fulfills all the requirements as statedin that contract. Therefore, Vicker is incorrect because it is thelegal rights of the construction company to handover theircontractual duties to Johnson to construct the cannery. This is dueto the fact that the initial construction contract was between theconstruction company and the people who subscribed into theconstruction, which was achieved with the intervention of Johnson.
Contractbetween Metal Crafters and Lamar Highway Construction Company wasbased on the reliance of the Head of the Research Deparment, Mr,Samet. Once the contract was made between the two entities, thecontract became a legal document which mandated that Metal Craftershad the legal duty to supply new earth-moving vehicles. However, theoccurrence of an uncontrollable event the death of Samet, resultedto the automatic termination of the contract because Metal Crafterscouldn’t achieve the terms of the contract. Therefore, MetalCrafters’ claims that the contract was discharged by Samet’sdeath are true.
Acontract is a legally binding document which is usually agreed uponby the parties involved. Hence, the contract between Tinchers andCreasy was terminated since the terms of the contract clearly statedthat the sales transactions should be completed within a 90 dayperiod without any time extension. In addition, the claims by Creasythat the 90-day clause is not binding are false because the contractwas time-oriented.
Gingerichwas entitled to the specific performance so that he would know theexact amount of the stock prices since they were not included in thegeneral stock market. The essence of the specific performance wasalso based on the importance of understanding the true monetary valueof stock before selling them to Protein Blenders Inc.
Thecontract between the Protection Alarm Company with Fretwell the homeowner was based on the compensation plan that was aimed at liquidateddamages and not penalty. Therefore, Fretwell agreed to the terms ofcontract by allowing the company to install the security system intohis house which seemed ineffective because the house was burglarized.Based on the company’s liquidation policy, it would only compensatetheir client the actual amount of the stolen items or $ 50 dependingwhich was lesser. Hence, in Fretwell’s scenario, the company waslegally required to compensate him $ 50 unlike his proposed fee of$12,000.
Twomey,D. P., & Jennings, M. (2014). Businesslaw: Principles for today`s commercial environment.