Reference no: EM13765718

Q1. QUESTION 1 (CONTRACTS):

Every day, we make contracts. Most of the time, we do not orally, and certainly don't in writing, follow the formalities of offer, acceptance, and consideration. We agree to meet someone, promise our children we will play ball after work, or pay a debt by a certain time. If the truth be known, we also probably breach contracts every day. A wise law professor of mine challenged us to accept the responsibility of "making it right" when we break a covenant or condition of such contracts. That would entail asking the other party what was necessary in terms of "remedies." The punishment was up to the other party: if apologizing was all it took, so be it. But if you had to perform other or special services, that was their choice. You had breached your agreement.

This question is one of ethics. Now that you know what is LEGALLY necessary in a contract, and that a contract is not enforceable if even ONE of the necessary elements is lacking, answer:

WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE ETHICAL OR MORAL ELEMENTS (or rules of business) OF A CONTRACT, IN ADDITION TO THOSE LEGALLY REQUIRED?

Q2. Internet Contracts

What are some special issues that arise in Internet transactions involving contracts as compared to traditional transactions involving contracts? What should business managers do to protect their organizations in Internet transactions? Avoid discussing an issue already mentioned by other students.

Q3.Contracts Puzzle - Please Solve

(This is a type of "essay" question in law that allows you to play the judge, to determine the right law to apply to the facts in order to make the ruling.) I want you to play the judge and determine who will win the case. This is a contract law issue, and can be solved by properly finding the applicable principles of law. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE FUN. YOU WILL NOT BE GRADED. So have fun making your best guesses. I will intentionally not give the "textbook" answer yet, but will make comments to let you know if you are warm or cool on the winning legal principles. You may use the book, my lecture, and your own skill at trying this. I think it will be a good learning experience.

Facts:

Let's say Charlie Consumer walks into Val Vender's lapidary shop (the names are intended to be gender neutral). You know what a "lapidaryist" does - he or she polishes rocks, and sells them as keepsakes. Perhaps Val has great knowledge about types of geology, rocks, and even gems.

Charlie picks up a piece of translucent rock (light will opaquely shine through it) and innocently asks, "What would you take for this rock, before it is polished?" Val takes it, looks it over, and offers it for $40.00. Charlie thinks that is a little steep, but consents to the sale. (Offer, acceptance, and consideration - right?)

Later in the week, Charlie follows a hunch, and takes the rock into a gemologist to have it appraised. "Holy cow!" says the professional. "What you have hear is an uncut diamond! Once cut and polished, it could be worth over $20,000."

You now have all of the tools to tell me who would win and why, if Val sued Charlie, and what law would apply. You may not know it, but the "cow," is a hint to the solution, but I'll save that for an explanation. Remember to draw on the mini lecture outline, or reading, for principles which will support your response.