{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Patterson v. Goldstein PC1 Brief

Patterson v. Goldstein PC1 Brief - problem with the Bar...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Patterson v. Goldstein (PC1 p409) Issue Can Patterson enforce a contract with Goldstein that was illegal? Rule Offer - 1)Present intent to offer 2)definiteness of terms 3)communicated to offeror Acceptance - 1)Present intent to accept 2)same terms (mirror image rule or UCC 2-207) and 3)communicated to offeree Consideration - 1)Legal Value (money or to do/not do something not/able to legally required/do to) 2)Bargained for (both ways) Unconscionability - 1)Absence of meaningful choice 2)terms unreasonably advantageous to one of the parties Illegal Arguements 1)Violates statutes 2)violate public policy developed by court 3) unconscionable agreements and contracts of adhesion. Application Goldstein argues that the contract with Patterson was not legal because it contained a clause of "bonus payment of 10 percent of Goldstein's attorney's fees to Patterson" which was illegal in Florida Bar's Rule of Professional Conduct and Goldstein told Patterson that the behavior was a
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: problem with the Bar. Patterson argues that he entered with good faith contract with Goldstein to be paid the bonus, and was unaware that such a policy existed making the bonus illegal. Patterson also argues that Goldstein mentioned after failure to pay to Patterson that the bonus was a problem with the Bar. Goldstein argues that Patterson was a paralegal and no stranger to the law, in his case ignorance of the law should not excuse him of the behavior and the reason Goldstein backed out of paying the bonus was because he reconsidered the position of committing an illegal activity. Patterson argues that the illegal activity of Goldstein paying a bonus for his work does violate a statute but it does not violate the public policy interests. Conclusion Yes Patterson can enforce the contract with Goldstein because it falls under the exception of not interfering with public interest....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online