Business Law – Case Study Example
The Case of Heckler & Quiat This is a situation that is representative of an express contract, or one where the language of the agreement, includingthe responsibilities of both parties, is in written documentation. It was the responsibility of the company to ensure a $5,000 payment if termination occurred prior to September of 2010 and Jones’ dismissal occurred two months prior to that date. It is a unilateral contract that is phrased in a way where the offeree completes their obligation only after a certain performance has been completed. It is completely enforceable under current law and Jones can definitely seek to recover his payment based on the offeree’s breach of contract.
However, there is one difficulty in areas of interpretation. Heckler may attempt to offer the court extrinsic evidence showing that it was Jones who failed to meet his obligations under the contract. It has some ambiguous language that says Jones must give full attention to Heckler & Quiat clients at least until September 1. According to rules for a court in interpreting documents, Heckler had the original responsibility for drafting the contract in very clear language and the court usually finds the drafting party responsible for using the ambiguous terminology.
If more than just one meaning can be derived through interpretation, the court usually blames the contract drafter for not clarifying the language. The ambiguous language is not about the $5,000 as the terms are clearly identified. It is about giving full attention to clients in the meantime. An employee has a right to look for new work without notifying their employer unless spelled out differently in another employment contract. A court interpreter would likely want actual proof from Heckler that Jones’ being away from the office had an impact on client outcomes or caused lost profit for the firm. Simply being away from the office does not necessarily mean he was not satisfying his client load. The court would likely find that Jones was entitled to the $5,000 because of the ambiguous contract language and find in Jones’ favor. Heckler would have the serious problem of burden of proof in order to score a legal victory.