This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 85 C HAPTER 11 A GREEMENT A NSWERS TO Q UESTIONS AT THE E NDS OF THE C ASES CASE 11.1(PAGE 234) WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that, the day after Lucy purchased the farm, he decided that he did not want it after all, and Zehmer sued Lucy to perform the contract? Would this change in the facts alter the courts decision that Lucy and Zehmer had created an enforceable contract? No. In fact, this would likely support the courts determination that there was an enforceable contract between the parties. In this cir- cumstance, unless Lucy attempted to void the contract on the ground of intoxication, the court might not have addressed the issue at all. CASE 11.2(PAGE 236) THE ETHICAL DIMENSION Besides breach of contract, Trell charged the defendants with fraud, misap- propriation of property, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conver- sion, and conspiracy with intent to defraud. What might have been Trells mo- tivation for all of these charges? Is this a reasonable basis for a lawsuit? Dis- cuss. Trell might have been motivated by feelings of hurt over the rejection of his manuscript and its proposed solution to Beals Conjecture. As painful as this might seem to a person enamored of his or her ideas, it does not seem a reasonable basis for a lawsuit. Arguably, it could be unethical to pursue legal redress on this ground, accord- ing to any of the approaches to ethical reasoning suggested in the text. THE E-COMMERCE DIMENSION Should the court have made an exception to the rule applied in this case for an ad posted on the Internet? Why or why not? No, because, as the court stated, there is no distinction requiring a different analysis or result merely because the ad- vertisement was ... communicated over the internet as opposed to through television, radio or newspaper advertisement. Yes, because the Internet is a more personal me- dium than the other sources that the court cites and its postings are more readily taken to heart, or more reasonably construable as offers, and accepted. 86 UNIT THREE: CONTRACTS AND E-CONTRACTS CASE 11.3QUESTIONS (PAGE 239) 1A. Why must the terms of a contract be sufficiently definite before a court will enforce the contract? According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Cir- cuit in the Baer case, an implied-in-fact contract must be sufficiently definite so that the performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable cer- tainty. ... [C]ourts recognize that a contract is unenforceable for vagueness when its terms are too indefinite to allow a court to determine with reasonable certainty what each party has promised to do. 2A. What might a court consider when looking for a sufficiently definite meaning to make a contract term enforceable? As indicated in the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Baer case, if the parties specify a practicable method by which they can determine a term, a court will consider this...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/11/2010 for the course MGT 301 taught by Professor Pederson during the Fall '10 term at SUNY Stony Brook.
- Fall '10
- Business Law