Does there really exist such thing as &quot;no contract&quot; when doing business with other party? Sales persons are sometimes advertising their service as "contract free", so that they would get a better chance to convince you to sign up for their service. I guess the reason why this works is because to average person "contract free" typically means that you don't have to read fine print on a written contract that most of the time works against you. However, isn't this misleading advertising to claim that there is "no contract", because there always will be a contract - either verbal or written on a paper under different title (e.g. Application Form, "Unicorn tears")? Based on answer I received here, the person claimed that it does not matter what is the title of the document - so document with title "Application Form" could incorporate another document via reference that specifies terms. Effectively you actually end up having a contract, but the only difference is that you did not explicitly sign the referenced document and did not have a chance to read it; and this works against you. Or another person confirmed here that there does not have to be any paper signed at all for judge to think that there was a contract in the first place. Also, another person told here that the terms don't need to explicitly be mentioned in the first place, if price (and possibly late fees) were omitted from contract, then judge will figure out what is fair. What would judge do if you were able to prove that other party claimed that their service is "contract free"? If sales person was honest would he have to explain to the other party that "contract free" actually means: You know our service is only "written contract fee" and not "contract free". However, this is the exact reason why you would have to be really dumb to enter into business with us orally or just via Application Form, because now instead of just dealing with the fine print issue that you would have had with written contract, now you will also have to deal with incorporation by reference issue where we can incorporate terms and conditions from Application Form into our website or somewhere else; also, now instead of knowing what are the exact fees (e.g. ETF, late fees) that we would charge from you we will simply charge whatever we think is "fair amount". If you disagree with the amount of fees we charge, then no worries judge will decide what is fair for you. However, remember, just because that we did not disclose such fees in contract it does not mean that we can't charge them from you. Does monologue from "honest" sales guy above really explains how our legal system works, if there is "no contract"? Note that this question is only asked from legal point of view and not from building good relationship point of view. I will wait for multiple answers before accepting the right one. I will give preference to that answer that will be backed up with precedent case where judge discusses meaning of "no contract".
Let's say I buy a phone. Typically you can buy a phone with something that is advertised as "no contract" or for example "with a 24 month contract". In reality, "no contract" means "we have a contract where you hand over the cash, and the phone company hands over the phone, and there are various guarantees that are either implied or explicit, but there are no terms in the contract that force you to hand over money to the phone company beyond payment for the phone in the future if you don't want to". So there is a contract, but the contract is such that you as the customer have no obligations towards the seller once you have paid for the goods. "No contract" would happen for gifts, or as an example if you download open source software in the USA for free. There will be a difference between a "no contract" contract between business and consumer or between two businesses. Most countries have consumer protection laws so if a deal is advertised as "no contract" and the business demands further payments, they will likely lose. Between two businesses, each side is fully responsible to study the actual contract terms.
Yes, that would, or at least could, be a legal contract. The key thing that makes a contract between two parties is the agreement, the intention to enter into a binding contract. The written words are only evidence of their agreement, and the specifics of what is agreed to. An oral (spoken) contract can be valid and binding (although in some cases the law requires a written contract). Electronic contracts do not need to be done through a site such as docusign, although there are advantages to using such a process. A typed signature will be legally binding if it is intended to represent agreement to the contract. The US federal e-sign law says that no specific technology is required to make a valid electronic signature. See What gives e-signatures legal standing/force in the United States? and https://law.stackexchange.com/a/79670/17500 for more details. That the contract words are copied will also not impair the validity of a contract. Many bushiness use form contracts. Many lawyers create new contracts by putting together parts of old contracts that served their purpose. The person sending the offer and proposed contract must make sure that the other party understands that this is to be a binding contract, and agrees to the use of an electronic signature, and agrees to the contract as a whole. It would be a good idea if a bit more detail were included than in your example. Must the agency find people acceptable to the client? Haw soon must it find them? How much must the client pay? How soon must it pay? A good contract will specify such details.
Bill and Jane are free to enter into a contract where, among other things, each provides valuable consideration; in this case Bill provides valuable lawn mowing services and Jane provides valuable money. In week No 1 they have negotiated the terms and the contract is complete when Bill mows the lawn and Jane pays the money. If Bill turns up next week without Jane's instruction then there is no contract and Jane does not have to pay anything; I don't think this is what you are asking but I include it for completeness. If it is understood that this arrangement continue week after week then either there is an ongoing contract or, more likely, a series of independent contracts. If there is an ongoing contract, then it can be renegotiated but it cannot be changed unilaterally by Bill. That is, he cannot unilaterally increase the price to $2. If there is a series of contracts then the terms of each of those contracts will be the same based on the course of dealing. Basically, the parties have accepted over a long period of time that the rate for a mow is $1 and Bill would have to get Jane to accept the revised rate before he mows the lawn. For your example, Jane owes Bill $1 but if she wants him back next week she will have to agree to Bill's rate.
The parties to the contract have not changed; they are still the purchaser company and the scrap vendor. The obligations have not changed; they are presumably based on amounts of stock and monetary value. The only changes are in the name of one party and its ownership, so unless the contract permits termination for those reasons (not unheard of, if a contract has been intended to provide/avert support from/by a particular party or symbolism) the contract still stands with all its terms. A novation is not needed.
Having done a bit of brief research, I find that "legit" is a synonym for "good". So, no. The header announcing a "principal amount" serves no purpose and could be misinterpreted as indicating that there is a loan. There is no reason to indicate the date twice, which gives rise to two different values of "date". The phrase "For value received" can be interpreted in at least two ways, one being "in exchange for some unspecified value to be received at some future date by Promisor", and "in exchange for a specific value already received by Promisor". Under the later interpretation, Promis(s)ee probably could not breach but under the former, Promis(s)ee could. So it makes a difference. You can just pay to the Promis(s)ee, and not imply that you are creating a pay-to-order instrument such as a check. That still leaves you the option to pay with a check. Or was the intent to say "pay on demand"? The expression "the sum of £500 shall the Promisor fail to meet his target" is not grammatical in US English, and I'll leave it to a UK speaker to judge if this is, over there. I assume that this is supposed to express conditionality, in which case "if" is a useful term. Then the meat of the contract, I guess, is that if the Promisor fails to meet somebody's target of 47.5 work hours per week, then Promisor has to pay Promissee £500 (and not otherwise). It's really not clear how anyone would know whether "meet a target of 47.5 work hours per week" has come to pass. Does that mean "work at least 47.5 hours per week"? Does that mean "for each of the three weeks within the time period" (or did you mean "work 47.5 hours within some one week, within the 3 week period"). Being explicit that the work obligation extends for 3 weeks would be legit (vide supra). Supposing that the second clause means "Promisor will pay £500 by 5:00pm 2 July 2016", you should put it that way. Or if you mean "Promisor will pay £500 by 5:00pm 3 July 2016", say that. Deadlines for performance should be stated very directly and clearly, and require no calculation and interpretation. And I'd suggest including a clause stating that "Promissor" and "Promisor" are used interchangeably in this contract. Or else be consistent in spelling. Note that almost any contract can be given some interpretation. From the perspective of creating a contract, the first concern should be over clearly expressing the intentions of the two parties in written form. After all, you don't have a contract if there is no meeting of the minds.
No. An engagement letter is a written confirmation that you have hired a lawyer which also sets forth the contractual obligations of the parties (i.e. the basis upon which attorneys' fees will be charged in the case). Instead of serving as an "estimate" or "approximate quote" of the fees to be charged, it is evidence that there is an attorney-client relationship and it sets forth the contractual terms of that relationship. Unless the engagement letter is for a fixed fee (which is uncommon but not unheard of), it only sets forth a method for determining what legal fees are owed and does not predict in advance what those fees will be. An engagement letter often does set forth a "retainer" amount that must be paid when the lawyer is hired, but a "retainer" is more akin to a security deposit on a lease than an estimate of what the total charges for the representation will be. Lawyers are required as a matter of professional ethics to put these things in writing. Of course, it wouldn't be improper for an engagement letter to include an estimate of the fees that will be charged in a representation as well as the other matters described above. But, that would be rather unusual. Firstly, since these people didn't even type my mobile number correctly, I'm uneasy about them drafting a legal agreement for me, where I wanted each and every clause to be thoroughly checked. I'm not confident of them being thorough. This certainly doesn't make a great first impression, although it reflects more on the quality of the office staff than on the legal acumen of the lawyers. I wouldn't blow a simple typo in writing a phone number out of proportion. How do I tell them that I do not need their services? Advise them by telephone, or better yet by letter, email or text, that you have decided not to retain their services. Does their sending of an engagement letter mean that I pay them for their time of drafting the letter? The firm probably could charge you, but it is customary not to charge for drafting an engagement letter. I wasn't expecting an engagement letter. I was expecting something like an ordinary email which said something like "this is our approximate hourly fee". Lawyers, as you might expect from their line of work, need to be more formal as a result of their legal ethics requirements, so this is very normal. The engagement letter constitutes a contract between the parties if the engagement is commenced. An informal communication, followed by a formal one, could lead to confusion over which one applies and could lead to mistakes where someone given an informal communication never received the required formal engagement letter. their hourly fees (which does not look reasonable to me) Lawyers are expensive, and good lawyers are worth it. The supply and demand issues are particularly intense in India because there are fewer lawyers there capita than in many other countries.
Variations of contracts must be consented to by all parties. This means that if the company sent your friend varied terms, it would have included means by which she would have consented - this may be by continuing to use a service. You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. You could try to charge the company PoS terminal storage fees, but it's highly unlikely to be enforceable if they don't agree to it. In theory if they are aware of the change and they accept them in some way then they are bound to the terms just as she would be, even if they later claimed that they were not aware of them. There is some precedent - in Russia - for this with a bank and it made the news some time ago. There's plenty of cases in which people who don't read EULAs or loan contracts thoroughly are still forced to honour their obligations to their creditors under them.
No Let's consider a similar scenario. If you made a beverage which poisoned a number of people, would you be absolved of liability because you gave it away for free? Of course not. As there is no contract between you, they would have to bring an action against you in the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement OR under consumer protection law. To succeed at tort they would need to prove that you owed them a duty of care; from Donoghue v Stevenson "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure ... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in contemplation ...". Most cases will founder on your inability to foresee the use to which your software may be put. Consumer law is jurisdiction specific but they generally contain warranties that what you provide (gratis or otherwise) is fit for purpose, merchantable and that you do not make false and misleading statements. There is a chance that a case brought under this sort of law could succeed as you have not limited the purpose, specifically declared that it is not of merchantable quality and have (presumable) said what it does so that, if it doesn't do what you said, you have been misleading and deceptive.