Mgmt 597 Week 1 Homework

Week 1 Homework

Mgmt597

9.4 No- Winkel doesn’t receive the profit-sharing bonus. Under the equitable doctrine of quasi-contract, a court may award monetary damages to a plaintiff for providing work or services to a defendant even though no actual contract existed between the parties. This doctrine does not apply where there is an enforceable contract between the parties. In this case, there was a written employment contract between the parties. Thus, for Winkel to be entitled to the profit-sharing bonus the court must find that the written employment contract was altered in writing or by an executed oral contract.

Winkel testified that the agreement to receive profit-sharing was an oral agreement. The question becomes whether the oral agreement was executed, i.e. fully performed. The court held that because Winkel had not been paid his salary and bonus the contract was not executed. Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the trail courts holding that Winkel was entitled to his bonus.

10.7 Andrus wins and doesn’t have to pay the premiums on the insurance policy. To constitute a contract there must be a meeting of the minds between the parties, an offer by one and an acceptance by the other. Generally, silence is not considered acceptance even if the offeror states that it is. The offeror can’t force the offeree to speak or to be found by his silence. The court found that the prior policy was a separate and independent agreement that came to an end by its own terms. It contained no automatic renewal clause and failed to the bind the parties in any way after the expiration of the original policy. None of the communications amounted to an acceptance.

11.4 No – Gough can’t recover the cost to re-erect the thirty-two fallen trusses. An agreement on the part of one to do what he is already legally bound to do is not sufficient consideration for the promise of another. In this case, Gough assumed no obligation or duty that he was not bound to perform under...