Essay Title: 

business law

March 24, 2016 | Author: | Posted in law, legal issues

Business Law

2006

Case 15-7

The parol evidence rule presumes that a written contract contains the final and complete agreement between the parties . It forbids the introduction of any evidence apart from the written contract that would change the stipulations therein . The court will refuse to accept evidence of an alleged oral agreement when there exists a written agreement , clearly setting forth the terms and conditions of the contract without any reference to external sources . The written document is the best evidence of a contract between the parties . When the [banner_entry_middle]

br language of the written contract is clear , a party cannot alter the stipulations therein by saying that there were prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that clarify or alter such stipulations . These alterations would amount to an allowing a party to breach the contract that has already been clearly agreed upon and signed by the parties on the written document

Nowhere in the contract is it stated that Canopy Group , Inc . may deduct expenses from the agreed 600 ,000 royalty fees . There is no ambiguity in the terms of the agreement so there is no need to look outside the four corners of the written document . Canopy Group , Inc . is obliged to pay 600 ,000 to Novell , Inc . without any qualification or condition . This being the cause and consideration for entering into the contract , the court will not entertain any extrinsic evidence to reduce the stipulated amount where there is no proof of fraud or misrepresentation in the entering of the contract

Case 16-7

The contract allegedly breached is one between NCAA and the colleges and universities (particularly , the University of Colorado in this case . Bloom was not a party to this contract but he was clearly a third-party beneficiary of it . One of the purposes of the contract between the NCAA and the University of Colorado was to benefit the student-athletes and to set forth the terms and conditions of their eligibility to compete under the NCAA . This goes to show that Bloom was not merely an incidental beneficiary but he is part of the group of persons (i .e . student-athletes ) that the contract clearly intended to benefit . Being an intended third-party beneficiary , Bloom is given the standing to a suit to enforce the contract to the extent that it will benefit him

Nevertheless , Bloom cannot be given the remedy he seeks because the by-laws of the NCAA allow endorsements and media activities only to support professional careers , not amateur athletes . Bloom is not prohibited from engaging in these activities but he must choose between continuing with these endorsement deals and quitting the amateur league or playing as an amateur and giving up the media activities . He cannot have it both ways because the NCAA , as the regulating body , is free to set its own terms and conditions for the eligibility of student-athletes . They are completely free to exclude Bloom from the amateur competitions if he later chooses to pursue a professional career

Case 17-7

Frustration of purpose is… [banner_entry_footer]

Comments Off on business law

Author:

This author has published 9190 articles so far. More info about the author is coming soon.

Comments are closed.