Midterm Essay Questions and Answers
Name of Student
Name of Professor
1. Do BIG and WGC have a contract for the bushels of wheat? Why or why not? Analyze all issues.
The only contract that may have existed between BIG and WGC was an express contract. This is because there was not even one given time did the managements of the two companies sit down and entered into an agreement on the supply of wheat and corn. However, when the BIG manager requested Peter, an employee at WGC to supply them with 800 bushels at $2 per bushel, he agreed and even requested a cheque to be written. Therefore, this was an express contract based on the conversation that they had and since there was an offer (supply of bushels), offeree and an offerer. Apparently, this is also a valid contract, it can be enforced under the law since there were legal formalities and obligations set in place (Cross & Teaching Company, 2015). First of all, there was a consensus between Peter, a representative of WGC and the manager at BIG who made an offer and Peter accepted. Secondly, a free consent exists between the two parties as the BIG manager asks Peter of he was okay with $800 per bushel and he says yes and even requests for a cheque. Thirdly, the consideration was a two-way contract where negotiations on the pricing and amount to be supplied were made. As a result, once WGC received that Cheque from BIG, they were obligated to fulfill the contract and if not, a law suit would be filed against WGC for breach of a legal contract, even though it was not a written contract.
2. Is Peter liable for any criminal activity because he bought 2,000 shares of CSA stock? Why or why not? Analyze all issues.
Apparently, Peter did not commit any crime by buying the 2,000 shares from CSA as he was taking advantage of an open business opportunity as an individual. The most important thing is that Peter went online and bought the 2,000 shares through ‘his’ broker. This means that he was acting in his own interests and not on the behalf of the company. In a free market, he was allowed to buy shares from any company that offered to sell (Cross & Teaching Company, 2015). Furthermore, he knew that the value of the stock exchange would rise as he had heard this from two people discussing, somewhere in the city. Therefore, Peter did not sabotage the CSA in any way as there existed no joint ventures between CSA and WGC by the time he bought the shares, and in fact, after that, the contents of the contract between the two companies were not revealed to anyone but the top management. After the joint venture, Peter now becomes a shareholder of the joint venture and an employee of the same, however, he is not liable to any crime as he bought the shares before any official joint venture could be made and that means he was a shareholder of another company which is allowed.
3. Is Peter liable to his company, WGC, in any capacity? Why or why not? Analyze all issues.
Since Peter is an employee of WGC, he is liable to it as he is a representative of all transactions that the company makes as an employee. In any case, the supply and purchase that he made with BIG are only implied when it comes to WGC and in this case, since WGC and CSA had entered into an agreement to supply each other with wheat and corn, then WGC would hold Peter liable for the sabotage. However, Peter has a defense, in that he made a deal with BIG on behalf of WGC but by the time, he treated BIG as a normal customer, there was no joint venture yet made between CSA and WGC. As a result, he made a mistake that was instigated by disclosure of information by his own company on the plans they had been having in terms of a joint venture with CSA. The accountabilities set by the companies in terms of such transactions were also not clear on whom should make the transactions, moreover, the call from BIG showed that they are usually supplied by WGC with wheat as the manager on the other side knew the pricing per bushel.
4. Suppose Peter is charged with a crime in federal court. At his arraignment, the judge sets his bail at $100 million, orders a jury trial, and does not allow Peter to retain an attorney in any future court proceeding. What can Peter argue to the court? Discuss all relevant issues.
First of all, Peter made a mistake by making a transaction with BIG which was not a contractual customer with WGC, however, he did not know that. He just acted as a normal employee who was doing his work and had made some sales on behalf of the company. The assumption that he breached a contract made between CSA and WGC is wrong; this is because there was because, as an employee, important information about the merger was not disclosed to him nor to the public. Apparently, the terms that WGC ad CSA put prohibited the companies from transacting with other companies for a certain period, but Peter did not know that. Secondly, the judge was wrong to deny Peter the right to an attorney and the bail of $100 was too unfair for Peter. Everybody reserves a right under the law to a fair court hearing and the right to an attorney (Bainbridge & Bainbridge, 2015). In this case, Peter can argue to the judge that he was just doing his work and had no idea that he was making a mistake as the deal between CSA and WGC was made privately between the top management only. The announcement about the joint venture came too late after he had made the transaction with BIG.
Bainbridge, S. M., & Bainbridge, S. M. (2015). Corporate law.
Cross, F. B., & Teaching Company. (2015). Business law: Contracts. Chantilly, Va.: Teaching Company.
Place an Order