Reference no: EM133045429
Question
Diamond Electronics and Silver Wire Co. are engaged in a business transaction on a regular basis. Their transactions are routine to a point where they sometimes buy from each other couple times a week. Hence they have a good relationship. The first few years they would have a written, signed contract but both companies thought it was a hassle to sign it every other day. The parties agreed to let go of the written agreement and instead started dealing with each other with phone calls and emails.
Mark works for Diamond. He is the purchasing manager. His counterpart is Jane, who works as a Sales Representative for Silver Wire. Both are authorized to make buying and selling decisions in their respective capacities on behalf of their companies respectively.
On January 1, 2020, Mark called Jane and said "hey Jane we need a container of your Brand Z cable wires by Feb 15." Jane said, "Not a problem Mark". Jane hangs up and soon realizes they didn't discuss the price, but she knows that Diamond always pays the asking price so she doesn't bother to call again to ask. On Feb 15, Mark gets the goods and with it a bill of $50,000. He jumps out of his chair. He receives the goods and places them in Diamond's warehouse, which is where they are generally stored for operations. On Feb 20, he called Jane and said the price is too high and that he never committed to the goods, and further he said "I wish to return them".
Jane noted that they never discuss price on an deal, because it has never been an issue. Mark said, "Well its an issue now... unless you can send me more inventory worth $3,000". Jane quickly dispatched more goods worth $3,000. Jane has ability to provide complimentary goods for up to $3,000 to their regular customers so Jane was not too worried about it. Her bigger concern was to make sure that Diamond paid $50,000.
On Feb 25, after Diamond received more goods, Jane called Mark again to demand $50K payment. He was agitated and said, "What makes you think I will pay $50,000? I need a 10% discount or I will call your bosses, and I am pretty sure I can get you fired very easily because you know you made a mistake." Jane, out of fear of losing her job, said, "sure, sure no problem. I will give you a 10% discount." Diamond quickly paid Silver Wire $45,000 with instant bank wire the same day.
Question: Was there an Agreement and Consideration between Diamond Electric and Silver Wire on the following dates?
Jan 1? b. Feb 15 c. Feb 20? d. Feb 25?
For each part answer, please explain, if there was an agreement, what was the agreement for?
Attachment:- Successful entrepreneur.rar
Analysis of company financial information
: Prepare well-written titled "Would You Advise a Friend to Invest in This Company?" based upon your research and analysis of company's financial information.
|
How does nafta and usmca differs
: Creates level playing field for American workers, including improved rules of origin for automobiles, other products, and disciplines on currency manipulation
|
Major metropolitan police departments
: We hear of corruption in major metropolitan police departments; are you surprised to hear of this level of corruption in a smaller jurisdiction?
|
Chi-square analysis
: Find a journal article that uses a chi-square analysis. What is the hypothesis? Was the result significant?
|
Agreement and consideration
: Was there an Agreement and Consideration between Diamond Electric and Silver Wire on the following dates?
|
Law enforcement need arrest warrant
: Did law enforcement need an arrest warrant prior to arresting Mayo? Discuss why. Make sure to support your thoughts.
|
Define the elements of legal contract
: Define the elements of legal contract using examples from the scenario where applicable. Decide whether or not there was a contract for purchase of automobile.
|
Explain what cyber squatting
: Explain what cyber squatting is. Offer some history of when and why cyber squatting started to show up.
|
Digital footprint in the case of law suit
: Research and discuss the laws that allow courts to authorize exploration into a person's digital footprint in the case of a law suit.
|