Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.

QUESTION

Complete 2 pages APA formatted article: Business law. Business law Law defines a set of rules that regulate interaction between members of the society. It outlines rights and obligation of parties in

Complete 2 pages APA formatted article: Business law. Business law Law defines a set of rules that regulate interaction between members of the society. It outlines rights and obligation of parties in relations. This paper seeks to explore cases under law of contract.

Douglas vs. special products

Facts

Douglas entered into a contractual agreement with Page Wilson under ‘non-compete’ provisions. Acquisition of Page Wilson resulted to ownership by Special products. Special Products, after Douglas’ resignation, filed a suit against him for soliciting the organization’s clients but he argued that there was no ‘non-compete’ contract.

Issue

The issue to be determined is whether a ‘non-compete’ contract existed between Douglas and Special Products.

Rule

Assignment of contractual rights transfers all rights of the assignor under privity of contracts (Clarkson et al., p. 246, 304- 305).

Application

The ‘non-compete’ contractual rights were transferred to Special Products hence exception of ‘privity’ of contracts.

Conclusion

Douglas is therefore not correct because Special products had enforceable rights.

Kethan vs. MHA

Facts

MHA acquired MedEcon, Kethan’s employer under a ‘non-compete’ agreement, including Kethan’s contract. Kethan then resigned and violated the ‘non-compete’ agreement prompting a suit.

Issue

The determinable issue is whether the ‘non-compete’ agreement was assignable.

Rule

An assignment transfers all of the rights of the assignor as was held in the case of Martha Graham vs. Martha Graham center of contemporary dance (Clarkson et al., p. 304- 307).

Application

MHA acquired all of MedEcon’s rights including rights over the ‘non-compete’ contract.

Conclusion

The ‘non-compete’ contract was assignable.

Bruder vs. Texas

Facts

Jones assigned a claim over money, which he paid as a bribe, to Bruder. Bruder has moved to sue the state for the money that it received as evidence for the crime.

Issue

The issue to be determined is whether the assigned claim was enforceable.

Rule

A contract is only enforceable if its subject matter is legal (Clarkson et al., p. 260).

Application

Payment of a bribe is illegal and cannot establish an enforceable contract.

Conclusion

Bruder will therefore not be successful.

Carlil vs. Carbolic

Facts

Carbolic company announced that it would pay a sum of money to any individual who contacted flu after consuming its drug. Carlil used the drug but contacted the flu and then sued for the compensation.

Issue

The issue for determination was whether there existed an enforceable contract.

Rule

With other essential elements satisfied, offer and acceptance constitute a contract (Clarkson et al., p. 237).

Application

Carbolic made an offer that was accepted by Carlil.

Conclusion

A contract was recognized between carbolic and Carlil (Macken, p. 1)

Implied warranty of merchantability. usage of trade

Unless expressly avoided or varied, there is an implied warranty that goods sold by a merchant are of merchantable quality. This means that the goods must be generally acceptable according to their description, must be of reasonable quality, must be ordinarily applicable, and must correspond to their labels. The warranty may generate other warranties (Law, p. 1).

Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose

Unless expressly excluded, there is an implied warranty, in cases where the seller is informed of the purpose of the goods and the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise, that the commodities matches their intended purpose (Law, p. 1).

Works cited

Clarkson, Kenneth, et al. Business Law: Text and Cases - Legal, Ethical, Global, and Corporate Environment. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Law. “Uniform commercial code.” Cornell University Law School. N.d. Web. 07 June 2012. Macken, Claire. “Sample case summary of Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball CO [1892] 2 QB 484.” Deakin University. N.d. Web. 07 June 2012.

Show more
LEARN MORE EFFECTIVELY AND GET BETTER GRADES!
Ask a Question