Bargained-for Legal Value

called consideration. The consideration provided by one party to the other must be something that is bargained-for by the other party and have legal value. Whether or not something is considered bargained-for depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction. Essentially, the consideration must be something that the other party has asked for in exchange for the consideration that they are going to give up. For example, suppose A promises to pay B $50 if B mows A’s yard.

The consideration provided by A is the promise to pay $50, whereas the consideration provided by B is the act of mowing A’s yard. If, instead of mowing A’s yard, B cuts down A’s dead trees, B’s act of cutting down A’s trees is not consideration for A’s proposed contract since that activity is not what A desires. Something has legal value when it contains either an act or forbearance (or promise of either). In either case, the act or forbearance must be something that is not already completed.

A good test for whether something has legal value is to ask yourself, “Is the other party doing (or promising to do) something that they are not already legally obligated to do? Or is the other party refraining from doing (or promising to refrain from doing) something that he/she has a legal right to do? ” If the answer to either question is “yes,” then you have legal value. If that legal value is also something that was bargained-for by the other party, then there is valid consideration! (Whisenant, 2005) APPLICATION OF FACTS TO LAWS:

The first breach of the contract by the investors and their representative, Thomas was that they did not deposit the amount of $2,000, in lieu of which legal action wouldn’t have been taken against them. Now the task is to find out whether the party intentionally breached the contract or did it unintentionally. Thomas, the promoter in the deal knew about the clause as well as the investing party but as they were short of funds they didn’t pay, which they could have done later on fully knowing the consequence of such a delay. The second breach of the contract was done by the buying party again about the payment.

They knew that the closing was in two weeks but they backed out at the last moment and there were no funds available with which payment could have been done. So the sellers were enforcing the contract terms against all parties involved. As both the contract breaches were done intentionally so now there are also some penalties involved that have to be faced by the investing group. Either in the form of money exchange or whatever is ordered by the court. I did not mention both Thomas and Jennifer as they were had nothing to do with the contract breaches although they were legally involved. CONCLUSION:

The corporation of the investing group was not yet formed and they had no assets to hand over to the sellers even if they were successful in having a legal action against them. So the court should penalize them by asking for the payment of some amount to compensate for the waste of time due to them and for other preparations done for the transfer of property for all the parties involved. Any real estate agent should, in the future, emphasize on the payment of the deposit at the time of signatures. Burt my other suggestion is to add another clause of down payments in real estate contracts.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ETHICAL ISSUE: Basically there are two issues involved. Both are done by Mark, William’s best friend in college. Mark, after listening to William’s praises of his new company, wants to apply in that agency too as he doesn’t feel like home at his current employment. Due to William he gets the job and invites William for its celebration in a pub. There he tells William of the reasons why he isn’t happy and according to him he was sitting on a ticking time bomb in his old company and the offer came at a perfect time.

Mark tells him that in his old company employees were permitted to stay in company condos in their vacations. On one occasion he was staying in Florida condo. The company had inadvertently double booked the place and he had to stay with company’s women from accounting department. The girls were a wild sort and partied all night and thrashed the place. That is the first ethical issue. He was cleaning the condo when he found a confidential file in the bag of a lady from the account’s department and found about the merger with another company and the prospects of downsizing.

The day he gave his termination notice he received reimbursement from Continental Airlines for $1200 and according to him he had asked his company’s permission. William got to know about Marks arrest charged with check fraud. ETHICAL ISSUE: Organizational ethics is what the employees of an organization believe but it also affects the companies and corporations thus all the employees should work together, tolerate each other to achieve the goals and also do them in a right way.

Ethical issue arises when someone crosses the line and does something that was not in code of conduct of an organization. Utilitarianism: It is the basic concept that deals with the all the good and the bad produced by the actions. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive.

(Utilitarianism, 2008) ANALYSIS: I have written all the facts above that are relevant to the situation and the issue being considered right now. I am only going to discuss one such issue as have been written in the instructions i. e. William’s knowledge of Mark’s arrest. That is the main issue that is of importance in William’s life at work as he is the one who wrote the recommendation letter and had a meeting with the director for hiring of Mark.

The main thing to worry about is that ERU hires employees who are loyal, work with integrity and honesty and here is there new employee who has been arrested for the same charge of which they are so against of i. e. check fraud. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: So although Mark is William’s “best buddy” he also has an obligation as an agent of the firm. So he should tell the officials of the arrest and leave on them the consequences that Mark is going to face as the foremost duty of an agent is of loyalty to his principal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lori Whisenant, JD, LLM, CPA (2005) https://www.utilitarianism.com/