Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the law of contracts, the mirror image rule, also referred to as an unequivocal and absolute acceptance requirement, states that an offer must be accepted exactly with no modifications. [1] The offeror is the master of their own offer.
A bilateral contract is created when there is an exchange of promises between at least two parties. [11] Under the mirror image rule, the terms of the final contract are those stated in the offer, that is, the first promise. The offeree must accept the offer as a whole without any variation, otherwise the acceptance will become invalid.
The law of contracts varies from state to state; there is nationwide federal contract law in certain areas, such as contracts entered into pursuant to Federal Reclamation Law. The law governing transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide through widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code .
Until fairly recently, requirements contracts were deemed void under the law of France for lack of defined terms under Articles 1129 and 1583 of the French Civil Code. [4] In Belgium, by contrast, court decisions have consistently held such contracts to be valid, despite the Belgian Civil Code having language identical to that of France. [5]
Accord and satisfaction is a contract law concept about the purchase of the release from a debt obligation. It is one of the methods by which parties to a contract may terminate their agreement. It is one of the methods by which parties to a contract may terminate their agreement.
The doctrine of impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where the said duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform. Impracticability is similar in some respects to the doctrine of impossibility because it is triggered by the occurrence of a condition which prevents ...
The promise must be real and unconditional. This doctrine rarely invalidates contracts; it is a fundamental doctrine in contract law that courts should try to enforce contracts whenever possible. Accordingly, courts will often read implied-in-fact or implied-in-law terms into the contract, placing duties on the promisor.
Contracts for the benefit of a group, where a contract to supply a service is made in one person's name but is intended to sue at common law if the contract is breached; there is no privity of contract between them and the supplier of the service.