Free «Business Law» Essay Sample
Table of Contents
Bob should pay interest on the defaulted payments since when he clicked “Yes” he subscribed to the terms and conditions that bind the buyer and the seller. The court is obliged to fine Bob if the plaintiff can produce evidence to the effect that Marketing World, Inc. sent a warning letter of defaulting to pay and that the defaulted payment would attract interest. That way the court will check on unscrupulous companies and online scam that can take advantage if their clients like Bob. For, instance Marketing World, Inc., can decide to charge Bob exorbitant interest rates for a long time before actually bringing the matter to court. Therefore, it is appropriate that Marketing World, Inc. must prove that they did informed the defendant Bob the about the delayed subscriptions and the interest rates formula and percentages that apply (Miller & Jentz, 2010). Therefore, though ignorance cannot stand in as an alibi for Bob, Marketing World, Inc must prove that they contacted Bob to comply with the subscription rules and if indeed the company sent warming and Bob accepts top the face then he can be fined.
Fresher Foods, Inc., can only recover if they provide records of evidence that clearly had an agreement that in effect bound their oral contract. Evidently, Dale Vernon stands accused of receiving a down payment of US$125 and a week later he received US$1,125 on the day when he was supposed to deliver one thousand bushels of corn (Miller & Jentz, 2010). However, Dale Vernon can reject ever making a contract with the Fresher Food Inc., and further insist that Fresher Foods made payment to brokers without consulting the supplies department as defined in one of the terms and conditions and therefore Fresher Foods should suffer the loss for not consulting the corn supply department. Therefore, while Fresher Foods may verify that Dale Vernon breached the contract through making payments only, Fresher Foods Inc. must also appear not to contravene any of the terms and conditions of sale, such as “inquire of supplies before making payment”.
Hurry up! Limited time offer
Use discount code
Hypothetical Question with Sample Answer
M. M. Salinger, Inc. a television retailer ordered 100 sets of color-X from Fulsom and the action of the latter to write back after receiving the order is a definition of acceptance to the contract. Further, Since Fulsom supplies 90 set products according to the stipulated order instruction, therefore he must have agreed to the contract and therefore the contract is binding. Fulsom’s business negligence and probable arrogance is evident in his claims that the contract to supply 100 model color-x sets remained unbinding is a lie since he claims he sent 10 wrong sets for accommodation purpose thus agreeing to the fact that Fulsom is wrong while M. M. Salinger, Inc. is correct to claim for damages as a result of a breach of contact.
Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) began buying auto parts from Q. C. Onics Ventures, LP with a free will permission to terminate the contract at ant time. Therefore, according to the rules of the contract, Q. C. Onics Ventures, LP have no claim over Johnson Controls because the purchase order states clearly that a buyer has the right to opt out at pleasure. However, if Q. C. Onics Ventures, LP were in a process of serving a purchase order when the buyer opted out, then the firm has the right to sue and be compensated for damages.
Rulemaking and Adjudication Powers
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) promulgated rules that attracted an immediate irrevocable penalty regardless of whether traders were cross-examined or not. Therefore, it is true that the rights of traders are unduly limited by the new promulgated rules that should be cancelled.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
Case problem with Sample Answer
Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to control “any” forms of air pollution that affect the green house gas equilibrium in order to conserve the environment. Therefore, the excuse by EPA that the Congress is yet to pass a law to establish auto-emission limits is contrary to the absolute duty that the nation and people have entrusted to EPA. Thus, EPA should just regulate the auto-emission at a level that is practical enough to reduce pollution and the Congress can take action to review the matter.