Showing posts with label offer and acceptance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label offer and acceptance. Show all posts

Monday, March 3, 2014

Contest Winner Gets Toy Yoda Instead of Toyota

Here's one from the archives.  Back in 2002 a Hooters franchise in Panama City Beach, Florida ran a beer selling promotion contest for their employees.  The prize? From USA Today:


Those cutups at Hooters are always good for a few laughs!  Hooter's defense?  It was an April fool's joke!  Of course, a contract offer must be evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable person based on manifestations of intent, not from the subjective, unexpressed intent of the offeror.

What was the settlement worth?


Good for her.


Monday, April 8, 2013

Guest Blogger, Henry Lowenstein: Elvis Dumervil and the Price of Six Minutes


ELVIS DUMERVIL AND THE PRICE OF SIX MINUTES

by
Henry Lowenstein, PhD
Professor of Management and Law
Coastal Carolina University
March 30, 2013



Professors often hear the lament from students about being late to class, late with assignments. They ask why this should be such a big deal?  What difference does it make if I am a few minutes or a day late?  They quickly learn the importance of time in the legal environment of business and business law sections on contracts as well as it coming into play on the topic of agency.

In business, as is often the case, “time is of the essence.”  In bidding on public contracts deadlines are explicit and unyielding.  In the private sector with Just-In-Time production methods and financial markets that operate by the second 24/7, a late submission often costs millions of dollars, potential legal liability and the loss of careers.

The critical importance of timeliness is well demonstrated by the recent plight of NFL football’s Elvis Dumervil, formerly of the Denver Broncos, a tale that has well resonated with my students………………..


Elvis Dumervil is an All-Star defensive end in the NFL’s Denver Broncos football team. An All American from University of Louisville, he was drafted in the 4th round of the NFL 2010 draft.

THE CONTRACT

In July 2010, Dumervil signed a 6-Year player employment contract for $61.5 million which included a retention guarantee of $43.168 million through 2015. The contract specified that if Dumervil was on the roster at 2:00pm Central Time on March 15, 2013, he would receive a guaranteed salary of $12 million for the 2013 NFL season.

Subsequently, the Denver Broncos encountered problems with the $123 million salary cap established for each team by the National Football League (NFL).   To meet its salary cap requirements, the Denver Broncos engaged in renegotiations with players to restructure contracts to meet the salary cap   

Dumervil and his agent were offered an $8 million guaranteed for the 2013 season, which Dumervil intended to accept.  Dumervil’ s offer, however, required signed paperwork agreeing to the terms and confirming his position on the roster by 2:00 p.m. Central Time on Friday, March 15, 2013   This duty was left to his agent, Marty Magid.

On Friday, March 15, 2013, Magid did not fax the completed paperwork to the Broncos until 2:06 p.m. Central time…..6 MINUTES LATE!

OUTCOME:

1.    In accordance with the contract, missing the 2:00pm deadline automatically triggered a clause whereby the Denver Broncos released Dumervil as a free agent, thus, no contract with the Broncos.  This immediately saved the team $4.869 million. (known as “Dead Money” under the NFL salary cap) which the team can now reallocate against the salary cap. 
2.    Dumervil may not recover the lost $4.869 million, even if the team agrees to take him back and re-sign him for another year.
3.    Dumervil is out of work and has to seek another team as a free agent if one will hire him, or if the Broncos will re-sign him, both options likely to result in lower contract terms.
4.    Dumervil has fired his agent.  (He may have a negligence cause of action against the agent, yet to be determined.)
5.  On March 26, 2013, the Baltimore Ravens announced signing now free agent Dumervil to a new 5 year, contract for $5 million per year.  In USA Today Mr. Dumervil expressed satisfaction with the new team and contract.

Nevertheless, the SIX MINUTES cost him at least $3 million in salary a year ($15 million over 5 years) he would had received had his acceptance been received on time by the Denver Broncos.  Or in other words that lateness equaled  $2.5 million in salary per late minute!


LESSON:  As students in contracts:

1.    A written offer will be read to its plain meaning and its specific terms.
2.    Terms of acceptance:  In this case, the terms of the offer were specific that it must be RECEIVED by 2:00 PM CT.  There is no exception to the plain reading of the contract terms.

3.   Because the acceptance terms were specific, the general rule that an offer is accepted once dispatched (such as the “Mail Box Rule”) does not apply in this case.

And, as to be learned in Agency

The principal (in this case Dumervil) is liable for the acts entered into (or failure to enter into) by the Agent when he gives the agent actual (express) authority to act on his behalf.

MOST IMPORTANTLY….REMEMBER THE COST OF 6 MINUTES.   In contracts, time is of the essence.

 _______________________________________________
(Sources:  Mike Kilis, Broncos Release Elvis Dumervil because new contract too late, Denver Post, March 16, 2013 (updated)
Jim Corbett, With A Wink and a nod, Elvis Dumervil was a Raven, USA Today, March 26 2013 at www.usatoday.com

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Will Lawsuit Trump Maher's Joke?

National news services are reporting that Donald Trump plans to sue Bill Maher because Trump "accepted" Maher's "offer" to pay $5 M if Trump provided proof that he was not the offspring of his mother pro-creating with an orangutan. Apparently anticipating Maher's defense, Trump insists:

"I don’t think he was joking. He said it with venom. That was venom. That wasn’t a joke. In fact he was nervous when he said it. It was a pathetic delivery, but he said, 'I will give' and I said I will accept, so let’s see what happens."  

The legal standard, of course, is intent to contract - not the level of joviality or vengeance contained in the purported offer.  So, see the video clip below and judge for yourself.  Is it a contract offer or not?

update: Lawsuit withdrawn (to be re-filed later?)

Friday, March 9, 2012

Featured Case: Baer v. Chase: "Taking Care" of Things

In Baer v. Chase, the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld a district court’s finding for the defendant on a motion for summary judgment.  Baer, a former New Jersey prosecutor shared some of his ideas about a TV show based on the activities of New Jersey organized crime families with Chase, a TV producer/director.  Unbeknownst to Baer, Chase had already been actively researching and writing a TV series that would become The Sopranos. Chase consulted with Baer on an occasion or two and used Baer’s contacts to arrange meetings with New Jersey detectives who shared stories about investigation of mob crime activities.  Baer alleged that Chase had promised that if the show became successful, Chase would “take care of him.” The court found that the contract’s description of Chase’s performance was not sufficiently certain and definite.  The Court allowed the quasi contract claim for quantum meruit to proceed to a trial which resulted in a defendant's verdict.
Given the way things get “taken care of” in the underworld, Baer may have gotten away easy.
Did you take care of that thing?


Taking care of two things:

Having your lawyer take care of things:

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Counteroffer: From My Cousin Vinny

Rarely is real life contract negotiation as stilted and mechanical as a formal offer, rejection, counterofffer, acceptance, etc.. Students have to sift through the way people actually communicate to identify the language, conduct, or other expressions of intent that make up the necessary elements of mutual assent for contract formation.  The following clip from the movie My Cousin Vinny includes a comical "contract" negotiation including, as Vinnie points out, a counteroffer.

Click on the image below to go to the video site:


Another option:

Monday, March 28, 2011

Law Lessong - Mirror Image Rule

This simple video and song from a Power Point presentation can help students consider the application and effect of the Common Law "Mirror Image Rule" to acceptance of contract offers. Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here. More Law Lessong videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Featured Case: Lucy v. Zehmer

This iconic case is a staple in contract law. Students can't help but remember Adrian Hardy Zehmer's testimony that he was "high as a Georgia Pine" and that the transaction "was just a bunch of two doggone drunks bluffing to see who could talk the biggest and say the most."  The opinion is avilable on the internet in a number of forms.  This one has a scanned copy of the front and back of the Ye Olde Virginnie Restaurant order pad that was used to scrawl out the contract (reproduced below at bottom). Thanks goes to Frank Snyder at Texas Wesleyan University Law School who unearthed and posted a digital photo of the contract (below).  Prof. Snyder has also posted a number of photographs relevant to the case which can be found at the AALS Contracts Section website.  Read his blog post, here. Thanks, again, Prof. Snyder for using the internet to make these resources available for all of us to use in the classroom.
Lucy v Zehmer Image




Friday, January 21, 2011

Reasonable Interpretation of Contract Offer/Acceptance Language

What would you give to see the Red Sox win the World Series? While this is not really a contract, the isssue is, "How would a reasonable person interpret the language of the responses?" You decide!

Friday, December 10, 2010

Featured Case - Leonard v. Pepsico: Reasonable Interpretation of Offer

In Leonard v.Pepsico (site courtesy of South Texas College of Law) Mr. Leonard attempted to hold Pepsi liable on a purported contract offer made in a TV commercial to provide a Harrier Jet in exchange for pepsi points. My favorite passage from the decision: "Plaintiff's insistence that the commercial appears to be a serious offer requires the Court to explain why the commercial is funny. Explaining why a joke is funny is a daunting task; as the essayist E.B. White has remarked, 'Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process....'"

The 1st "Harriet Jet" Pepsi commercial:



The 2nd "Harriet Jet" Pepsi commercial:



What makes the Harrier Jet unique: