Law School

Offer and acceptance are generally recognized as essential requirements for the formation of a contract, and analysis of their operation is a traditional approach in contract law. The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance. Offer. Treitel defines an offer as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed", the "offeree". An offer is a statement of the terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound. It is the present contractual intent to be bound by a contract with definite and certain terms communicated to the offeree. The expression of an offer may take different forms and which form is acceptable varies by jurisdiction. Offers may be presented in a letter, newspaper advertisement, fax, email verbally or even conduct, as long as it communicates the basis on which the offeror is prepared to contract. Whether the two parties have reached agreement on the terms or whether a valid offer has been made is an issue which is determined by the applicable law. In certain jurisdictions, courts use criteria known as 'the objective test' which was explained in the leading English case of Smith v Hughes. In Smith v Hughes, the court emphasized that the important thing in determining whether there has been a valid offer is not the party's own (subjective) intentions, but how a reasonable person would view the situation. The objective test is largely superseded in the UK since the introduction of the Brussels Regime in combination with the Rome I Regulation. An offer can only be the basis of a binding contract if it contains the key terms of the contract. For example, as a minimum requirement for sale of goods contracts, a valid offer must include at least the following four terms: Delivery date, price, terms of payment that includes the date of payment and detailed description of the item on offer including a fair description of the condition or type of service. Unless the minimum requirements are met, an offer of sale is not classified by the courts as a legal offer but is instead seen as an advertisement. Under Dutch law an advertisement is in most cases an invitation to make an offer, rather than an offer.

At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent. Unlike assault, in which the fear of imminent contact may support a civil claim, battery involves an actual contact. The contact can be by one person (the tortfeasor) of another (the victim), with or without a weapon, or the contact may be by an object brought about by the tortfeasor. For example, intentionally bringing a car into contact with another person, or the intentional striking of a person with a thrown rock, is a battery. Unlike criminal law, which recognizes degrees of various crimes involving physical contact, there is but a single tort of battery. Lightly flicking a person's ear is battery, as is severely beating someone with a tire iron. Neither is there a separate tort for a battery of a sexual nature. However, a jury hearing a battery case is free to assess higher damages for a battery in which the contact was particularly offensive or harmful. Since it is practically impossible to avoid physical contact with others during everyday activities, everyone is presumed to consent to a certain amount of physical contact with others, such as when one person unavoidably brushes or bumps against another in a crowded lift, passage, or stairway. However, physical contact may not be deemed consented to if the acts that cause harm are prohibited acts. Contact required. Battery is a form of trespass to the person and as such no actual damage (for example, injury) needs to be proved. Only proof of contact (with the appropriate level of intention or negligence) needs to be made. An attempt to commit a battery, but without making actual contact, may constitute a tort of assault. The tort of battery developed out of a general judicial respect of an individual's autonomy and right not to be interfered with. Battery need not require body-to-body contact. Touching an object "intimately connected", to a person (such as an object he or she is holding) can also be a battery. Furthermore, a contract may constitute a battery even if there is a delay between the defendant's act and the contact to the plaintiff's injury. For example, where a person who digs a pit with the intent that another will fall into it later, or where a person who mixes something offensive in food that he knows another will eat, has committed a battery against that other when the other does in fact fall into the pit or eats the offensive matter.

The Executive: Powers committed to the President of the United States (Article II). Article II, Section 1, vests the executive power in the President of the United States of America. Unlike the commitment of authority in Article I, which refers to Congress only specifically enumerated powers "herein granted" and such powers as may be necessary and proper to carry out the same, Article II is all-inclusive in its commitment of the executive power in a President of the United States of America. Enumerated powers of the President Several important powers are expressly committed to the President under Article II, Section 2. These include: Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Power to pardon offenses against the United States. Power to make treaties (with consent of the Senate); and the Power to appoint judges, ambassadors, and other officers of the United States (often requiring Senate consent). The Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, cl. 2-3) grants the president the power to veto Congressional legislation and Congress the power to override a presidential veto with a supermajority. Under the clause, once a bill has been passed in identical form by both houses of Congress, with a two thirds majority in both houses, it becomes federal law. First, the president can sign the bill into law. In this scenario there is Congressional agreement. Second, if not in agreement, the president can veto the legislation by sending the bill back to Congress, within ten days of reception, unsigned and with a written statement of his objections. Third, the president can choose not to act at all on the bill, which can have one of two effects, depending on the circumstances. If Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law, without the president's signature, only with a two thirds majority of both houses. If, however, Congress adjourns during that 10-day period, the bill fails to become law in a procedural device known as the "pocket veto". The bill becomes "mute". The president approves or rejects a bill in its entirety; he is not permitted to veto specific provisions. In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president the power to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures in appropriations bills. The Supreme Court subsequently declared the line-item veto unconstitutional as a violation of the Presentment Clause in Clinton v City of New York, (1998). The Court construed the Constitution's silence on the subject of such unilateral presidential action as equivalent to "an express prohibition," agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the president in its entirety. The Court reasoned that a line-item veto "would authorize the President to create a different law--one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature," and therefore violates the federal legislative procedure prescribed in Article I, Section 7.

United States constitutional law is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject mainly concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government as compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. As the ultimate authority on matters of constitutional interpretation, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States make up a large portion of constitutional law. Interpreting the Constitution and the authority of the Supreme Court. The power of judicial review. Early in its history, in Marbury v Madison, (1803) and Fletcher v Peck, (1810), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the judicial power granted to it by Article III of the United States Constitution included the power of judicial review, to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a State or Federal law. According to this jurisprudence, when the Court measures a law against the Constitution and finds the law wanting, the Court is empowered and indeed obligated to strike down that law. In this role, for example, the Court has struck down state laws for failing to conform to the Contract Clause (see, e.g., Dartmouth College v Woodward) or the Equal Protection Clause (see, e.g., Brown v Board of Education), and it has invalidated federal laws for failing to arise under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (see, for example, United States v Lopez). Scope and effect. The Supreme Court's interpretations of constitutional law are binding on the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, on the lower courts in the federal system, and on all state courts. This system of binding interpretations or precedents evolved from the common law system (called "stare decisis"), where courts are bound by their own prior decisions and by the decisions of higher courts. While neither English common law courts nor continental civil law courts generally had the power to declare legislation unconstitutional (only the power to change law), the United States Supreme Court has long been understood to have the power to declare federal or state legislation unconstitutional.

Formality. Ordinarily, contracts do not have to be in writing to be enforceable. However, certain types of contracts do have to be reduced to writing to be enforceable, to prevent frauds and perjuries, hence the name statute of frauds, which also makes it not a misnomer (fraud need not be present to implicate the statute of frauds). Typically, the following types of contracts implicate the statute of frauds: Land, including leases over a year and easements. Suretyships (promises to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of another). Consideration of marriage (not to actually get married but to give a dowry, for example). Goods over a certain amount of money (usually $500, as in the UCC). Contracts that cannot be performed within one year. For example, a two-year employment contract naturally cannot be performed within one year. In many states’ lifetime contracts are not considered to fall within the Statute of Frauds reasoning that life can end at any time, certainly within one year from the time of execution. In other states, notably Illinois, contracts requiring performance for a lifetime are covered by the Statute. The statute of frauds requires the signature of the party against whom enforcement is sought (the party to be sued for failure to perform). For example, Bob contracts with the Smith Company for two years of employment. The employer would need to sign the writing. Moreover, the writing for purposes of satisfying the statute of frauds does not need to be the actual contract. It might be a letter, memorializing and formalizing an oral arrangement already made over the phone. Therefore, the signed writing does not need to contain all of the terms that the parties agreed to. At common law, only the essential terms were required in the signed writing. Under the UCC, the only term that must be present in the writing is the quantity. The writing also does not need to be one document, but if there are multiple documents, they must all obviously refer to the same transaction, and they all must be signed. The signature itself does not need to be a full name. Any mark made with the intent to authenticate the writing is satisfactory, such as initials or even such as an X by an illiterate party. A contract that may otherwise be unenforceable under the statute of frauds may become enforceable under the doctrine of part performance. If the party seeking enforcement of the contract has partially or fulfilled its duties under the contract without objection from the other party, the performing party may be able to use its performance to hold the other party to the terms of the contract. No writing is required when: Goods have been received and accepted. Payment has been made and accepted. Goods are specially manufactured (there is no market for them); or, under the UCC, the party against whom enforcement is being sought admits a certain quantity of goods. The last exception applies up to the quantity admitted, which may include the entire contract. This reversed the rule at common law that permitted a defendant to testify that he indeed contracted with the plaintiff but refuses to perform because it is not in writing.

Contract law regulates the obligations established by agreement, whether express or implied, between private parties in the United States. 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. There remains significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Formation. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties creating reciprocal obligations enforceable at law. The elements of a contract are mutual consent, offer and acceptance, consideration, and legal purpose. Agreement. Mutual consent, also known as ratification and meeting of the minds, is typically established through the process of offer and acceptance. However, contracts can also be implied in fact, as discussed below. At common law, the terms of a purported acceptance must be the "mirror image" of the terms of the offer. Any variation thereof constitutes a counteroffer. An offer is a display of willingness by a promisor to be legally bound by terms they specify, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person in the promise’s position to understand that an acceptance is being sought and, if made, results in an enforceable contract. Ordinarily, an offeror is permitted to revoke their offer at any time prior to a valid acceptance. This is partially due to the maxim that an offeror is the "master of his offer." In the case of options, the general rule stated above applies even when the offeror promises to hold the offer open for a certain period of time. For example, Alice says to Bob, "I'll sell you my watch for $10, and you can have a week to decide." Alice is free to revoke her offer during the week, as long as Bob has not accepted the offer. However, if the offeree gives some separate consideration (discussed below) to keep the offer open for a certain period of time, the offeror is not permitted to revoke during that period. For example, Alice offers to sell Bob her watch for $10. Bob gives Alice $1 to keep the offer open for a week. Alice is not permitted to revoke during the week.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.  Why intentional torts are different. As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in civil liability legislation, thus excluding the threshold of injury and damages payouts from various legislated limitations and caps. But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing. In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.' In Criminal Law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury. Comparison to battery. As distinguished from battery, assault does not need to involve the 'unwanted physical contact; but is the anticipation of such contact'. It only needs intent to make or threaten contact and the resulting apprehension. At one point, the common law understanding of assault required more than words alone, it also required an overt act. This understanding has changed, while words alone cannot be construed as assault, words coinciding with actions or circumstances that would put a person in reasonable apprehension that a harm or offensive contact was likely to occur would. For example, an actor shouting "I'm going to kill you" while not moving but in complete shadow and with a knife in their hand could be interpreted as assault. Additionally, Fear is not required for an assault to occur, only anticipation of subsequent battery. A battery can occur without a preceding assault, such as if a person is struck in the back of the head. An assault can be an attempted battery. For example, 'If Henry points a gun at Thomas, he has committed an assault. It makes no difference whether the gun is loaded,' But 'Henry will only commit a battery if he shoots the gun and hits Thomas'.

DNA paternity testing is the use of DNA profiles to determine whether an individual is the biological parent of another individual. Paternity testing can be especially important when the rights and duties of the father are in issue and a child's paternity is in doubt. Tests can also determine the likelihood of someone being a biological grandparent. Though genetic testing is the most reliable standard, older methods also exist, including ABO blood group typing, analysis of various other proteins and enzymes, or using human leukocyte antigen antigens. The current techniques for paternity testing are using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Paternity testing can now also be performed while the woman is still pregnant from a blood draw. DNA testing is currently the most advanced and accurate technology to determine parentage. In a DNA paternity test, the result (called the 'probability of parentage) is 0% when the alleged parent is not biologically related to the child, and the probability of parentage is typically 99.99% when the alleged parent is biologically related to the child. However, while almost all individuals have a single and distinct set of genes, rare individuals, known as "chimeras", have at least two different sets of genes, which can result in a false negative result if their reproductive tissue has a different genetic make-up from the tissue sampled for the test.

Credits. Credits are allowed against AMT for foreign taxes and certain specified business credits. The AMT foreign tax credit limitation is redetermined based on AMTI rather than regular taxable income. Thus, all adjustments and tax preference items above must be applied in computing the AMT foreign tax credit limitation. AMT credit against regular tax. After a taxpayer has paid AMT, a credit is allowed against regular tax in future years for the amount of AMT. The credit for individuals is generally limited to the amount of AMT generated by deferral items (for example, exercise of incentive stock options), as opposed to exclusion items (for example, state and local taxes). This credit is limited so that regular tax is not reduced below AMT for the year. Taxpayers may use a simplified method under which the AMT foreign tax credit limit is computed proportionately to the regular tax foreign tax credit limit. IRS Form 8801 is used to claim this credit. Complexity. The AMT is a tax of roughly 28% on adjusted gross income over $186,300 plus 26% of amounts less than $186,300 minus an exemption depending on filing status after adding back in most deductions. However, taxpayers must also perform all of the paperwork for a regular tax return and then all of the paperwork for Form 6251. Furthermore, affected taxpayers may have to calculate AMT versions of all carryforwards since the AMT carryforwards may be different from regular tax carryforwards. Once a taxpayer qualifies for AMT, he or she may have to calculate AMT versions of carryforward losses and AMT carryforward credits until they are used up in future years. The definitions of taxable income, deductible expenses, and exemptions differ on Form 6251 from those on Form 1040. The complexity of the AMT paired with the history of last-minute annual patches adjusting the law create tax liability uncertainty for taxpayers. For the last ten years, Congress has passed one-year patches to mitigate negative effects, but they are typically passed close to the end of the year. This makes it difficult for taxpayers to determine their tax liability ahead of time. In addition, because the AMT was not indexed for inflation until 2013, the cost of annual patches rises every year.

Remedies. In the United Kingdom, breach of contract is defined in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as:  non-performance,  poor performance,  part-performance, or  performance which is substantially different from what was reasonably expected. Innocent parties may repudiate (cancel) the contract only for a major breach (breach of condition), but they may always recover compensatory damages, provided that the breach has caused foreseeable loss. It was not possible to sue the Crown in the UK for breach of contract before 1948. However, it was appreciated that contractors might be reluctant to deal on such a basis and claims were entertained under a petition of right that needed to be endorsed by the Home Secretary and Attorney-General. S.1 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 opened the Crown to ordinary contractual claims through the courts as for any other person. History. Whilst early rules of trade and barter have existed since ancient times, modern laws of contract in the West are traceable from the industrial revolution (1750 onwards), when increasing numbers worked in factories for a cash wage. In particular, the growing strength of the British economy and the adaptability and flexibility of the English common law led to a swift development of English contract law. Colonies within the British empire (including the USA and the Dominions) would adopt the law of the mother country. In the 20th century, the growth of export trade led to countries adopting international conventions, such as the Hague-Visby Rules and the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, to promote uniform regulations. Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda, ("agreements must be kept"). The common law of contract originated with the now-defunct writ of assumpsit, which was originally a tort action based on reliance. Contract law falls within the general law of obligations, along with tort, unjust enrichment, and restitution. Jurisdictions vary in their principles of freedom of contract. In common law jurisdictions such as England and the United States, a high degree of freedom is the norm. For example, in American law, it was determined in the 1901 case of Hurley v Eddingfield that a physician was permitted to deny treatment to a patient despite the lack of other available medical assistance and the patient's subsequent death. This is in contrast to the civil law, which typically applies certain overarching principles to disputes arising out of contract, as in the French Civil Code. Other legal systems such as Islamic law, socialist legal systems, and customary law have their own variations. However, in both the European union and the United States, the need to prevent discrimination has eroded the full extent of freedom of contract. Legislation governing equality, equal pay, racial discrimination, disability discrimination and so on, has imposed limits of the full freedom of contract. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricted private racial discrimination against African-Americans. In the early 20th century, the United States underwent the "Lochner era", in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down economic regulations on the basis of freedom of contract and the Due Process Clause; these decisions were eventually overturned, and the Supreme Court established a deference to legislative statutes and regulations that restrict freedom of contract. The US Constitution contains a Contract Clause, but this has been interpreted as only restricting the retroactive impairment of contracts.