In the case of Winkel vs. Family Health Care , in order for Winkel to be entitled to any profit sharing bonus, the first thing that needs to be noticed is if the written agreement was altered by an oral agreement. According to the facts from this case the oral agreement concerning profit-sharing bonus was never performed therefore the agreement was never executed. A written contract may be altered by an executed oral agreement. And an oral agreement that alters a written agreement is not considered to be an executed oral agreement.Therefore, according to the laws of contract, Winkel is not entitled to the profit sharing bonus because the oral agreement concerning profit sharing was never performed and never executed. In my opinion, Dr.
Vranich did not act ethically by attempting to dismiss Winkels attempt to get the profit-sharing bonus. It was unethical move, because not all contracts have to be written in order for them to be executable. 10. 7 In order for a contract to be valid there has to be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other.
Also, an acceptance has to be met when a counter offer is present and has to be accepted otherwise its not considered binding. Another important part for a valid contract is that there needs to be acceptance in the meeting of the minds. In the case of Durick and Andrus, an offer was made when Durick proposed to Andrus that he needs to renew his policy, but Andrus stated that he would only accept the new policy and counter offered. In order to have a valid contract there needs to be meeting of the minds and offer and acceptance should be present.
Andrus didn’t want the $48,000 policy so there was no acceptance made.Andrus wins this case. 11. 4 In the case of Robert Chuckrow Constuction Company v. Gough, Gough will not be able to recover for losses from the trusses. The original contract was for Gough to perform carpentry work for the building. The written contract stated the Gough was to properly place the trusses, what happens to them is not the constructions company responsibility.
Since there was no consideration to pay additional compensation, or to recover the cost of the broken trusses, in the original contract, Gough will be able to recover the out of pocket cost of repairing the broken trusses. 3. 1 In the case of Steele v. Goette, the law behind rescinding a contract is that first that the consequences to enforce the contract that was offered would have to be unconscionable, the mistake has to relate to a material feature of contract, mistake could not have been from the violation of positive legal duty, and the other party must be in status quo. This contract is voidable, because after the survey on the home was completed the property ended up costing more than the original offer price.
So the estate can rescind the contract.