Natalie learner-CIN: 5678
FIN 205, Section 1
Written Assignment Winter Quarter, 2016
1. a. To determine whether Dotmade a valid offer to bit, we determine if it really was valid.yes,Dot Comm. made a valid offer to the Bit Player Company. The validoffer entailed the sharing of the profits gained from the sale of thesoftware where Dot was to receive 50 percent of the share profits.Dots action met the legal standards for an offer since she was theowner of the software.
b. Regardless of whether Dotmade valid acceptance or not, the email was already valid. Howard’semail was not a valid acceptance. Requirements for a valid acceptanceinclude a formal email with signatures and with stipulated terms andconditions as well as legal terms accompanying it. Howard emailfailed to meet the legal standards for an acceptance since it onlycommanded but did not have provisions for negotiations or even legalaspects.
2. a. In and its self whetherDot’s clicking on the “I accept” button was a valid acceptanceof the terms of Howard’s email. Dot’s actions created a contractwhere for every 1000 emails she receives, she was to pay Howard $3.99.Dot’s actions were sufficient as an acceptance of the terms ofHoward’s email because Howards email had only one stipulation thatindicated the validity of the acceptance of the terms and conditionsand that was the ‘I Accept” button’ on the email that got sentto Dot.
b.After Dot clicked on the ‘’Iagree’’ button, she did something not to indicate that she hadreceived the email but to try and undo her actions. Actions thatwould mean Dot’s acceptance of the terms of Howards email include,writing a reply to Howard stating that she had received the email.Also, not asking her bank for the amount of cash disbursed to Howardand clicking on the “I Accept” button willingly. None of Dot’slater actions indicated acceptance of Howards email because she triedto cancel the request and she went ahead to write to her bank to seewhether she could get help to stop the transactions from gettingmade.
3. To determine whether thecourt would rule in favor of the Bitplayer of the Dot-Max, the courtwould have ruled for the Bit player. Dot and Bit player entered intoa mutual benefiting agreement where Dot was to receive emails andBitplayer was to a charger for every 1000 emails shared. Theagreement between them was enforceable. Dot had not created anysubstitute for consideration since she clicked on the “ I accept”button unknowingly and this qualified her to get bound by thecontract set forth by Bit player.
4. In and its self I Dotwishes to avoid the agreement with Bit player she may do so. Thethree types of incapacities include inability by agreement where shewould Have to engage Howard to come into a covenant where they wouldopt to write off the terms of the existing contract and coming upwith a new one. Another incapacity is that of, incapacity by defaultor adverse party where a contact whether oral or written can getrescinded on the grounds of fraud. Also, incapacity bynon-performance or breach where one part can opt to cancel a contractbecause of the violation by the other party (Bayles,1987)
Dot can avoid her contractualobligations under this agreement on the ground of incapacity byadverse party which she may use as evidence against Bit player sinceit charged her inappropriately, also by incapacity by default she mayopt out of the contract since she entered into it unknowingly.
5. To determine whether thecourt would have ruled in favor of Mimi if Mimi and Mimi’s memoryinc.were to sue Dot-MAX, LLC the court would have to pass a rullingthat is not in favor of Mimi memory inc. Specific legal doctrinesthat Mimi would claim applies to force Max to keep his offer open isthat of, good will. The court would rule against Mimi not forcing Maxto keep his offer open because Mimi sued max by intimate relationshipbetween them.
6. To determine whether thecancelation of the agreement between the two companies is illusory.Yes, the cancellation/termination clause in the agreement betweenDot-Max, LLC and BetaBreakers renders the contract or any promise inthat document illusory. It is because what gets contained in theclause is improper as it does not give choices to the Dot- Max LLC,this provision endangers the enforceability of this contract as itleaves the Dot- Max LLC with limited options and its either a take itor leave it situation.
7. In and itself, if Dot wereto sue Dot-Max LLC for $ 100,000 as her split of the $ 200.000 forthe sale of the Block Aid app, she would win based on an argument oflack of proper consent/assent. The four primary methods ofinterfering with the concurrence/agreement include the currentabilities of the participant to understand the protocols, the levelof risk involved, whether or not there are benefits to the membersand absence of consent where an asset is available. The doctrinesthat Dot should use to win the lawsuit are that of the legislation ofthe state of Michigan on issues about consent/assent. Dot should winbecause they agreed to split the profits gained where she was toreceive a quarter of the returns from the sales made
8.In and itself, if Dot was tosue Max and Dot-Max LLC, for $100,000 as her split for $ 250,000 forthe sale of the Block Aid app she would not win based on an argumentthat she was ignorant of the contents of the assignment of Rights.The general rule concerning the avoidance of contracts states thatthe right of one party to avoid the contract gets exercised by noticeto the other party. The dot should lose since she granted all herrights of decision-making to Max.
9. a. To determine whether theillegality of a tiny portion of the contract makes the entireagreement illegal.The illegality of a tiny portion of the contractbetween Beta Breakers and Dot-Max does not make the entire agreementillegal, void, and unenforceable. The parties understanding Agreementand the full and complete agreement allow Dot max to enforce thecontract. Also, the acquisition of exclusive rights by Beta tomanufacture the product gives Dot-Max an upper hand to implement thecontract.
b. To determine whetherDot-Max would win if they sue Knute Brooke.Yes, Dot-Max would win ifthey were to sue Knute Brooke for the $ 10 million as the firstinstallment of their profit sharing. Knute Brooke when asked to payDot-Max their installments, he says that their contract is dead, andthis statement might make him get sued and end up paying the debt forthe violation of the contract, and this makes it enforceable
11. To determine whether thewritten agreement between the two companies is unenforceable. No, thewritten agreement between BetaBreakers and Dot-Max is notunenforceable because it is unconscionable. Legally,unconscionability means that a conduct fails to adhere to thedictates of conscience. The first type of unconscionability is thatwhich involves an unfair procedure in the process of bargaining whilethe second category is that of an unfair substantiveness in theoutcome of bargaining. Dot-Max has no remedies because it is a smallcompany that tries to fit into the industry of software business thusmaking it not have a say on all these issues.
Bayles, Michael D. Principlesof Law: A Normative Analysis.Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1987. Internet resource.