Contracts Assignment 1 Essay

Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust Company is a case that involves a formal bilateral contract that was entered into by businessman Bruce Bickham and G. S. Adams, Jr., Vice President of the Washington Bank & Trust Company in 1976 (Cheeseman, 2013). According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Bickham would conduct his personal and corporate banking with Washington Bank & Trust and the bank would provide loans to Bickham at 7.5 percent interest rate with 10 years to repay the loans. The language of this bilateral contract translates to what is referred to as a “promise for a promise” whereby no act of performance is necessary to form this kind of contract… and it is an enforceable contract (Cheeseman, 2013). The findings of

A contract is defined as, “a legally enforceable exchange of promises or an exchange of a promise for an act that assures that parties to the agreement that their promises will be enforceable (Kubasek 2015).” Contracts are essential for businesses to conduct business with one another. Before delving too far into the Muscadine grape case, it is also important to note that a sale is the, “passing of title to goods from buyer to seller for a price (Kubasek 2015)” and that a good is considered, “tangible personal property (Kubasek 2015).” Muscadine grapes and their by-products are the goods in question. When considering any legal case it is important to first consider the facts and the issues that are being considered.

4. Fourth Possible Offer. Dons response of "You can let me know anytime over the next two weeks. Unfortunately, a few of our residents have passed on so we have several openings right now. Just bring your father in after you've talked with your sister." to Peters request to get back with him the next day could be viewed as an offer by Peter. The communication between the two parties have ended with Don expressing his intent to be bound to a contract by giving Peter a timeframe for which to accept the terms of the contract which had been discussed throughout the conversation. Peter could reasonably expect to have the

Wally, business owner of Windy City Watches is located in downtown Chicago, IL. Business is booming and Wally needs to buy a large quantity of Rolek watches which sell for $50 apiece. He calls Randy Rolek, the wholesaler located in Milwaukee WI. They discuss terms on the phone for a while before coming to an agreement in which Wally offers to buy 100 watches for $25 each. Randy sends over an order form in which Wally states that he is agreeing to purchase watches from Randy for $25 each, but does not include the quantity in which he will buy. Randy sends 50 watches the following week with a note included stating that he has sent 50 watches and will send the other remaining 50 watches within a few days but includes the bill for the full

Bernie lives in Richmond, VA and he decides on February 1 to advertise the sale of his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,500 in the local newspaper. After several weeks and no offers he gets a call from Vivian on March 1st offering to purchase the car for $12,000. Bernie realizes he may not get any other offers and sets up to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the sale transaction.

Both parties must be bound.” Both parties must be required to perform under the contract, “in other words, it must be enforceable originally, or not at all.” Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009). As stated by The Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia "if it appears that one party was never bound on its part to do the acts which form the consideration for the promise of the other, there is a lack of mutuality of obligation and the other party is not bound." Busman v. Beeren & Barry Invs., LLC, 69 Va. Cir. 375 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein set forth and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the parties agree as follows:

Rule : : Contract formation requires mutual assent (offer and acceptance), consideration, and no viable defenses to contract formation.

t. P1) An agreement cannot bind unless both parties to the agreement know what they are doing and freely choose to do it.

Pat was very frustrated because she wanted to purchase a home but lacked the funds or credit to do so even though Pat was expecting shortly to receive a one-half million dollar final installment payment for some land she sold several years earlier. Dan knew that Pat was very interested in purchasing a home and approached Pat with a proposal to assist Pat in buying a home. Dan told Pat that he would help Pat with the financing. After finding the home she wanted to buy for $250,000, Dan and Pat orally agreed that Dan would purchase the home and "when you come up with the money, I (Dan) will sell it to you (Pat) for $250,000 plus a fair commission to be determined."

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

In our case, in accordance with the case law, both parties are not bound in this agreement. The return of the deposit by Bernie does not bind Bernie to this contract.

Lillard, Monique C., Fifty Jurisdictions in Search of a Standard: The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Employment Context, 57 Mo. L. Rev. (1992)

would give 100 £. The company then deposited 1,000 £ in a bank to show

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.