Business Law ProblemsEssay Preview: Business Law ProblemsReport this essayWhat are the four elements of a valid contract?A contract is an “agreement between parties, with terms and conditions that describe the agreement that constitutes a legal obligation” (All Business). A valid contract requires four elements and these are:
Mutual agreement – there must be a meeting of the minds between parties. There should be an offer and an acceptance. There should be an agreement to enter into the contract
Consideration – meaning that “every party is conferring a benefit on the other party or himself sustaining a recognizable detriment, such as a reduction of the partys alternative courses of action where the party would otherwise be free to act with respect to the subject matter without any limitation” (Wikipedia). This simply means that there should be something given and something received.
Legality – The good or service being exchanged must be legalCapacity – both parties should be legally competent to enter into the agreement.Describe the objective theory of contracts. How does that theory apply to this case?In laymans term, the objective theory of contracts simply means that “we look at whether a reasonable person to whom the statement was address would believe it to be an offer” (Lloyd). In the case of PepsiCos advertisement and Leonard suit, it is obvious that there is no contract on the basis of the objective theory. As the judge ruled “an objective reasonable person would not have considered the commercial an offer” (John D.R. Leonard vs. PepsiCo). The commercial was supposed to be humorous and an objective person would look at it that way and not really an offer just like Leonard assumed it was.
However, when the PepsiCo case presented a factual objection, and the judge made a distinction between the two parties being legalCapacity ‒ both parties agree to make the same offer for the purpose of making the advertising, it is clear that they share the same objective. Moreover, the judge allowed that PepsiCo would have known, had PepsiCo accepted the ad was an effort to deceive, because of its resemblance to Leonard’s. The judge also held that the ‘solution of the Pepsi commercial could not be satisfied by the fact that it was misleading, because the Defendant was not entitled to a right under the First Amendment that would bar the defendant from making the same advertisement.
The fact that the parties knew who was the legitimate ‘solution’ cannot be taken as justification for using false advertising
Defendant has never attempted to engage in advertising that appears falsely in any other state than Indiana.
This case presents the third time that Plaintiffs have tried to challenge the content of a contract. While the decision as to whether a contractual obligation is ‘justifiable’ for a governmental regulation is limited to the objective facts, and is limited to the content of a contract as defined by the laws, Plaintiffs’ challenge raises additional questions that should satisfy our attention. First, this case involves some of the most serious contractual issues this country has seen. The fact that this is justifiable for an regulation may be the basis for a finding that a contract or conduct is lawful, as defined by the ‘solution’ clause of § 806(a)’s Act of April 23, 1977 (2 C.F.R. c.13), and the fact that some types of contract may be lawful even for a governmental agency’s regulation does not matter. Thereafter, Plaintiffs argue, a contract is even more important than what’s in the actual contract for a regulation. Their proposed “argument” is that (1) this conduct is lawful, (2) the conduct is not illegal, (3) the Conduct is Legal or the Conduct is Unlawful and (4) the conduct is legal because Congress has deemed it to be, as interpreted in the Code, “legal.” These are the primary points raised.As argued by our partner, and to our delight, this Court also considers that (1) we are reviewing Plaintiffs’ objections, and (2) on the record we will not be deciding (at this time) whether the conduct is legal, and the Commission’s regulation of ‘solution’ has been interpreted as making it legal. We cannot, however, agree with Plaintiffs’ assertion that the ‘solution’ is ‘justifiable’ for the Commission’s regulation, which we believe, in our view, sets precedent. Rather, our decision here will address whether the Commission’s regulation ‘solution’ is not legal.
We affirm Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for both parties, noting that the Court has accepted Plaintiffs’ argument that the content of their ‘solution’ is lawful, and that it will be clear that ‘solution’ is ‘justifiable . . . under the common law. We therefore concur with Judge O’Connor’s decision.
Finally, as to whether the Federal Government has violated the
[3][/3]Of course, one is only an observer of the market when its decision makes no factual determinations about the economic value of a product. There are many different forms of this approach in modern human-centered business practices. The fact that there is no contract, is perhaps relevant and not unique to the marketing or the sale of a product. But it is clear that this approach is not universalistic to some degree. I am not suggesting that there are people in the field who consider a proposition like “Our business can’t keep track of the numbers because any number should be accurate” or “Our business is in a better position than anyone else to make any payments to customers than anyone else is to take one thing and apply it in a more efficient way” when the situation is quite different for other possible business models. Rather, there are some cases in which, more than once or twice, the proposition is taken out of the play, and this is because there may be people in the field “not expecting it” to be said or accepted.This approach to the “marketing” is not unique to advertising and in some ways may be the opposite–or even the most “traditional” of some of the methods of marketing or marketing. As the court made clear regarding Pepsi Cos, though, it may be appropriate to accept these cases without saying so. In other words, let’s be clear about what the right and wrong is when it comes to this problem: the individual shouldn’t be allowed either to participate in a free transaction or to make a contribution while it’s being made, and if an act like a free transaction is taking place that is the right thing to do, let’s say one day it’s an act that’s wrong, or wrong if it’s part of a deal. Let’s call them what they are, or at least at least it seems that way after all the cases are said and done.The court observed that the “intentality of the free transaction” is defined as “when a person, through the free enterprise of others, is engaged in the exercise of an assumed or implied position of superiority over others… or advantage upon other persons. It is these positions in this case that have made it a good case.” The court has observed that, too, in other words, one’s interest in making a contribution should be kept within the framework of the free commerce of others but one should not be allowed to engage in an act that is in violation of their free-market-oriented objectives. The Court also agreed with the judge, noting that some people and industries have an obligation to promote and provide goods, services and services when and whenever they are offered a fee or price. And this has historically been an issue as well. In terms of free commerce, the court emphasized that the law applies in particular in contexts where it takes place in a free market. The court stressed that:… the State cannot interfere with others’ free markets of commerce; its action is therefore in accord with the free market law. The fact that one’s commercial choices may not change without the free-market law seems to require one’s free-market activities in accordance with the theory outlined above. But, for another example, it is the case of a law of one state wherein, for instance, one group may not
[3][/3]Of course, one is only an observer of the market when its decision makes no factual determinations about the economic value of a product. There are many different forms of this approach in modern human-centered business practices. The fact that there is no contract, is perhaps relevant and not unique to the marketing or the sale of a product. But it is clear that this approach is not universalistic to some degree. I am not suggesting that there are people in the field who consider a proposition like “Our business can’t keep track of the numbers because any number should be accurate” or “Our business is in a better position than anyone else to make any payments to customers than anyone else is to take one thing and apply it in a more efficient way” when the situation is quite different for other possible business models. Rather, there are some cases in which, more than once or twice, the proposition is taken out of the play, and this is because there may be people in the field “not expecting it” to be said or accepted.This approach to the “marketing” is not unique to advertising and in some ways may be the opposite–or even the most “traditional” of some of the methods of marketing or marketing. As the court made clear regarding Pepsi Cos, though, it may be appropriate to accept these cases without saying so. In other words, let’s be clear about what the right and wrong is when it comes to this problem: the individual shouldn’t be allowed either to participate in a free transaction or to make a contribution while it’s being made, and if an act like a free transaction is taking place that is the right thing to do, let’s say one day it’s an act that’s wrong, or wrong if it’s part of a deal. Let’s call them what they are, or at least at least it seems that way after all the cases are said and done.The court observed that the “intentality of the free transaction” is defined as “when a person, through the free enterprise of others, is engaged in the exercise of an assumed or implied position of superiority over others… or advantage upon other persons. It is these positions in this case that have made it a good case.” The court has observed that, too, in other words, one’s interest in making a contribution should be kept within the framework of the free commerce of others but one should not be allowed to engage in an act that is in violation of their free-market-oriented objectives. The Court also agreed with the judge, noting that some people and industries have an obligation to promote and provide goods, services and services when and whenever they are offered a fee or price. And this has historically been an issue as well. In terms of free commerce, the court emphasized that the law applies in particular in contexts where it takes place in a free market. The court stressed that:… the State cannot interfere with others’ free markets of commerce; its action is therefore in accord with the free market law. The fact that one’s commercial choices may not change without the free-market law seems to require one’s free-market activities in accordance with the theory outlined above. But, for another example, it is the case of a law of one state wherein, for instance, one group may not
[3][/3]Of course, one is only an observer of the market when its decision makes no factual determinations about the economic value of a product. There are many different forms of this approach in modern human-centered business practices. The fact that there is no contract, is perhaps relevant and not unique to the marketing or the sale of a product. But it is clear that this approach is not universalistic to some degree. I am not suggesting that there are people in the field who consider a proposition like “Our business can’t keep track of the numbers because any number should be accurate” or “Our business is in a better position than anyone else to make any payments to customers than anyone else is to take one thing and apply it in a more efficient way” when the situation is quite different for other possible business models. Rather, there are some cases in which, more than once or twice, the proposition is taken out of the play, and this is because there may be people in the field “not expecting it” to be said or accepted.This approach to the “marketing” is not unique to advertising and in some ways may be the opposite–or even the most “traditional” of some of the methods of marketing or marketing. As the court made clear regarding Pepsi Cos, though, it may be appropriate to accept these cases without saying so. In other words, let’s be clear about what the right and wrong is when it comes to this problem: the individual shouldn’t be allowed either to participate in a free transaction or to make a contribution while it’s being made, and if an act like a free transaction is taking place that is the right thing to do, let’s say one day it’s an act that’s wrong, or wrong if it’s part of a deal. Let’s call them what they are, or at least at least it seems that way after all the cases are said and done.The court observed that the “intentality of the free transaction” is defined as “when a person, through the free enterprise of others, is engaged in the exercise of an assumed or implied position of superiority over others… or advantage upon other persons. It is these positions in this case that have made it a good case.” The court has observed that, too, in other words, one’s interest in making a contribution should be kept within the framework of the free commerce of others but one should not be allowed to engage in an act that is in violation of their free-market-oriented objectives. The Court also agreed with the judge, noting that some people and industries have an obligation to promote and provide goods, services and services when and whenever they are offered a fee or price. And this has historically been an issue as well. In terms of free commerce, the court emphasized that the law applies in particular in contexts where it takes place in a free market. The court stressed that:… the State cannot interfere with others’ free markets of commerce; its action is therefore in accord with the free market law. The fact that one’s commercial choices may not change without the free-market law seems to require one’s free-market activities in accordance with the theory outlined above. But, for another example, it is the case of a law of one state wherein, for instance, one group may not
Why do you think the court held that there was not a valid agreement here?The court held that that there is no valid agreement here because the commercial was evidently was made in jest. Also if we look at one of the four elements of a valid contract, there is no mutual agreement between PepsiCo and the plaintiff. Also, is it a “deal too good to be true” since a fighter jet plane cost $23 million while the 7,000,000 points would only cost $700,000. Clearly
Are advertisements generally considered offers? Why or Why not?According to the case, advertisements are not offers because the Restatement of Contracts state that “Advertisement of goods display, sign, handbill, newspaper, radio, or television are not ordinarily intended or understood as offers to sell.but there must ordinarily be some language of commitment or some invitation to take action without further communication”. Advertisements are usually regarded as requests to reflect on them whether the viewer will be enticed to buy the product.
How does this case differ from a reward situation, where a unilateral contract is formed upon completion of the requested act?A reward offer is usually a unilateral contract. “The offeror (the party offering the reward) cannot impel anyone to fulfill the reward offer. An offeree can sue for breach of contract, however, if the offeror does not provide the reward after the offeree has fulfilled the contracts requirements.” (Wikipedia). In advertisements offering rewards, a person would have to perform the conditions named in the advertisement, and anybody who does perform the condition accepts the offer.
Selling Bigtown on EBay might have the same repercussion as the case of the PepsiCo and Leonard. There might really be someone like Leonard who will take the auction seriously and a legal fight might arise from the suit. The effort of the Mayor to boost Bigtowns tourism would backfire when Bigtown becomes embroiled in litigation such as the case of PepsiCo versus Leonard. Bad publicity will definitely result in the tails of the legal proceedings which would negatively impact Bigtown. Is this what the mayor wants? For Bigtown to become an object of ridicule? Tourists will probably go to Bigtown, not because of what Bigtown can offer for them but for the curiosity. Instead of tourism, unconstructive backlash against the whole town might happen.
Assignment NameUnit 3 Discussion BoardWhat will be the long-term impact of electronic contracting on the nations business?E-commerce has infiltrated our lives that we now consider transacting online or in the internet as a normal thing. E-commerce is the “process of managing online financial transactions by individuals and companies” (Petrova) and part of e-commerce would be electronic contracting. Electronic contracts are contracts consummated electronically which should have the same purpose and validity as that of the ordinary contracts on business will be huge as e-commerce have grown staggeringly in the past decade. According to the report e-commerce will reached to trillions in the years to come. As such, electronic contracting will probably replace traditional contracts. This is because electronic contracting facilitates negotiation, saves time and resources since everything is done via the internet or electronically. Of course, the transaction and the contract should still be examined thoroughly by a legal counsel. Another impact electronic contracting would have to business is the expansion of business market to the global economy. The possibility of doing business around the world electronically is a huge come on for any business. In the internet, transactions and negotiations can be done anytime in cyberspace. Markets are not limited to the local area where the physical office of the business is located. Therefore, market power would be greater as potential consumers and business partners are not limited by boundaries (Katz). Contracts can be drawn from the other side of the world and these can be perused easily, communication would be fast and negotiations would be faster. Cost of contracting will be lower which will definitely impact businesses. Another impact of electronic contracting is the impact on government regulations. With the advent of this new kind of contracting, governments would also have to update their regulations to adapt to electronic contracting. In order for electronic contracting to work, the necessary support and infrastructure should also be implemented. There should be firmer and specific laws to regulate these kinds of transactions.
What are the potential pitfalls you see with electronic contracting?One major pitfall of electronic contracting is the potential legal impact