Business Law Assessment Paper Iii

Briefing Papers for Unit III

Student Name

Columbia Southern University

Briefing Papers for Unit III

Briefing Paper 1: Critical Legal Thinking

Critical Legal Thinking

“An implied-in-fact contract is a contract in which agreement between parties has been inferred from their conduct” (Cheeseman, 2013, p.187). In regards to the case Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corporation, both parties had an implied-in-fact contract due to Taco Bell’s contractual intention of Thomas Rinks and Joseph Shields idea for marketing purpose and ploys. Implied-in-fact contracts are created when a party understands and accepts the benefits and deals offered to them rather than rejecting them. Based off of Taco Bell’s conduct and behavior with the plaintiffs, there is an understandable reason that the services and ideas were to be compensated.

Ethics

In this case, it was and is unethical for Taco Bell to take and use an idea that was completed by other individuals who were implied-in-fact contracted. Chiat/Day was not at fault or unethical in their business manners due to Taco Bell’s failure of mentioning the idea of the Chihuahua character being taken from other individuals. Taco Bell was determined to use the idea both Rinks and Shields created without compensation, which would only better their marketing situation and finances. The actions by the jury and court awarding the plaintiffs $42 million for their damages were justifiable and signified horrible practices of business by Taco Bell.

Contemporary Business

An implied-in-fact contract was definitely existent in this case due to Taco Bell’s conduct and mutual intent with the plaintiffs Rinks and Shields. Implied-in-fact contracts should be recognized because of the tacit understanding of the parties and the unambiguous offer and answer that are accepted and not rejected by both parties. Since the implied-in-fact contract was true, I feel that the $42 million received from the courts is without a doubt acceptable. Companies...