Case Problem 2

Case Problem 2 - 1. After negotiations, the National...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. After negotiations, the National Association of Sports Officials [NASO] sent Jon an email stating: “We are offering you $10,000 for a series of instructional DVDs dealing with the aspects of football officiating that we have discussed. This offer is open until noon on Friday, March 13.” The NASO President sent this email on Monday, March 9. Assume that Jon and NASO enter into a contract. Characterize it as: Express, implied, or quasi Valid, void, voidable, or unenforceable Bilateral or unilateral Executory or executed 2. Would a court decide a dispute involving the legality, enforceability, and meaning of the contract by referring to article 2, UCC; the common law of contracts; or some other source of law? Mixed goods-services contract 3. Is this contract within the Statute of Frauds? If so, what are the implications? Contracts within the Statute of Frauds o Land o Sale of goods in excess of $500 o Promise made in consideration of marriage o Promise made by an executor of an estate o Collateral promise – guarantor agreement o Contract that cannot be performed within a year State law additions Affirmative defense
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Sufficiency of the writing if needed Parol evidence rule, integrated contracts, and integrated clause 4. If the contract is breached, what remedies might be available? Compensatory damages Specific performance Injunction Liquidated damages clause Consequential damages Incidental damages Punitive damages Mitigation principle 5. Now, dismiss the assumption in question #1. Does the March 9 email qualify as a valid offer? Intent – reasonable meaning of words and acts (objective test) o Preliminary negotiations o Price quotations/advertisements o Agreements to agree/letters of intent (Pennzoil v. Texaco and Cochran v. Norkunas case excerpt p. 258). Definiteness Communication to offeree (or agent – fiduciary duty of notification) 6. Assume that on Wed. March 11, Bob, a friend of Jon’s, emails the NASO President: “I understand you want a series of DVDs on football officiating. I will prepare 15 discs, to be delivered no later than July 1. Total fee $9,200.” On receiving this the NASO President emails Jon: “We are revoking our offer of March 9.” Jon replies: “Your offer stated that I have until noon on Friday to
Background image of page 2
accept, and I hereby do so.” Was Jon’s acceptance effective, or did NASO validly revoke their offer beforehand? Option contract 7. Assume the NASO offer of March 9 stated: “We are offering you $10,000 for a series of 15 instructional DVDs that deal with aspects of football officiating that you and we will agree on. The fee will be $10,000, $5,000 to be paid on your acceptance of this offer and the remainder to be paid when you deliver suitable discs to us. The discs must be delivered to us no later than July 1. This offer is open until noon on Friday, March 13.” On Thursday, March 12, Jon emails the NASO President: “Accept
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 12

Case Problem 2 - 1. After negotiations, the National...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online