Business Law

Business Law

Assignment 1

9.4) In discussing the case involving winkel against family health care P.C, it was noted that Dr loren Vranich entered into a written employment contract to hire Dennis winkel, there was an oral modification made to the agreed upon contract, which also made provisions for winkel to receive a higher salary and a profit sharing bonus. At this point, because both parties agreed on the details of the contract, it became enforceable and both parties could be held responsible for performance. Also according to Montana law, a written contract can be altered only in writing or by an executed oral agreement and in this case, both parties agreed to the contract even though it wasn’t in writing and it could be argued that it became a partially executed contract when winkel received the increased salary which was originally part of the oral modifications. As a result of this, Dr Vranich may have a hard time presenting the case for using the Montana law that the modification was not in writing, which also presents a solid case for Winkel to be able to receive the profit- sharing bonus that was originally part of the modification to the contract. Also because nothing in the case stated that Dr winkel did not perform up to the agreed upon standard of their agreement, personal disagreement may not be used as a means of not carrying out agreed upon aspects of a contract.

Discussing the action of Dr Vranich from the standpoint of ethics, it could be argued that the action was unethical because he clearly agreed to pay winkel and at some point enjoyed the services provided, which was why the agreement was made. To know go back on the agreement and decide not to pay clearly did not show good judgment on the part of Dr Vranich.

10.7) This case involves that of deciding on what constitutes as using silence as acceptance and it involves J.C Durick insurance vs andrus. It can be argued that Durick Insurance has no case against andrus because there was no indication that andrus agreed to the terms of the insurance policy even though silence was indicated as an agreement to the policy. The offer in this case was drafted according to what the offeror thought should be drafted and not based on the requirements of the offeree. According to the laws relating to enforceable contracts, a viable contract has to include an offer and acceptance but in some cases silence could be accepted as a form of acceptance due to to some certain conditions which include; offerree indicating that silence means assent, prior dealings between both parties indicated silence as a means of acceptance or if the offeree has signed an agreement indicating continuing acceptance of delivery until further notification. The insurance company in this case would