Can a question be considered as a oral contract? Let's say that you are asking someone: &quot;Let's meet at 5pm at place X?&quot; and the person replies: lets meet at 5pm but at Y. Then if you are stuck on an emergency and cannot reply until 5pm. If you contact the person again at 5pm and they say &quot;we agreed to meet at 5pm, why did you change plans?&quot; Where you bind to that oral contract if you didn't agree to Y?
The four key elements of a contract, which are all required to make it valid, are: agreement, capacity, consideration, and intention. Agreement Agreement is achieved by offer and acceptance. And that is where it already falls flat. Even if you count &quot;Lets meet at 5pm at place X&quot; is an offer, the reply &quot;Lets meet, but not at X but at Y&quot; is not an acceptance, its a counter-offer. If both parties just offered to meet and there was no other communication, then there has been no agreement at all. So you are already in trouble on the first point. Capacity I am sure both you and the other person were capable of entering into a contract. If you are 18 years or older and you both understood the terms of the contract, that is. Consideration Parties must exchange some value for a contract to be binding. That is why you see sale contracts for a symbolic € (or $). And that is the second point where this situation fails to meet the standard of a contract. Nothing of value was ever exchanged, thus there is no contract. Intention Not all agreements between parties are contracts. It must be clear that the parties intended to enter into a legally binding contract. [...] In social situations, there is generally no intention for agreements to become legally binding contracts (eg friends deciding to meet at a specific time would not constitute a valid contract). Thus, the agreement to meet fails this test as well. In short, no, there is no valid contract. The promise to meet fails to meet three of the four properties a contract needs to have. References: How to form a valid contract?
You can’t die “during” a sale The formation of a contract is instantaneous, if the buyer dies they have to die before there was a contract in which case the seller keeps the car or after there was one in which case the buyer’s executor and the seller must do everything necessary to complete the sale (or breach the contract and get sued). This has nothing to do with any administrative obligations that either party owes to a third party like the DMV. Failing to properly transfer title may lead to complications and disputes latter on but it doesn’t directly affect the contract.
Contracts contain an implicit term that obligations will be carried out in a reasonable time While the situation is unusual and we obviously don't have the specific terms of the agreement, it would appear that the vendor agreed to contribute to half the cost of the roof repair and your sister was obliged to contribute the other half and arrange for the roof to be repaired. Implicit in this is that she would do this within a reasonable time. Your sister does not have the right to keep the money in limbo indefinitely. It's open to argument whether a year is a reasonable time or not. Similarly, if your sister is in breach of the agreement, the vendor would probably only be entitled to damages for what they have lost; they would not normally be entitled to terminate the contract. Their damages might be assessed as the difference between what their share costs now compared to what it would have cost a year ago - this may be nothing or a lot depending on how prices have changed - and interest lost on the balance that should have been returned to them.
First of all, a contract is valid without a signature and even without being in writing; all that is needed is consent by the parties. Therefore, the signature is merely evidence of that consent and is only relevant if a dispute arises over the general consent or the particular terms that were consented to. A digital signature would make it harder for Bob to argue that those were not the terms he signed but if I have Bob's signature on them then the onus of proving he didn't sign rests with Bob, I don't have to prove he did. All of the methods you suggest are valid as would an email saying "Got the contract. I agree. Bob."
TOS are a contract. If you have a contract through the App, you have incorporated the TOS as a term of your contract. Contracts mean what they say they do, what you are thinking of as "basic contract law" is actual just an ordinary and customary term that people in your industry usually make a part of the contract, not contract law itself.
Can job interview questions be confidential? Is this legally enforceable? It is lawful, unless the nature of questions is outlawed or hinting at illegal activity. For practical purposes, though, confidentiality would be hard to enforce because Google cannot realistically prevent you from disclosing those questions. Whether or not Google can remedy any breach of that clause, that is a separate and uncertain aspect. Google's clause is binding only if you consent to it. Signing an NDA is not the only way to render confidentiality binding. Consent can be evidenced by anything that reflects your agreement to abide by that condition. It could be an email reply, or by subsequent conduct such as attending the interview with knowledge that constraint and without objecting to it. The fact that you attended the interview after reading that email makes their clause binding unless you objected and they nonetheless conducted the interview.
No Contracts are not bound by due process. Due process is a rule of how a lawsuit has to be handled, not how a contract is to be handled. All the Due Process clauses in the US constitution simply don't apply. The only things that apply are the contract language, and the underlying/overwriting laws. If your contract stipulates that it is terminated by winning a coin flip against the other party, that's fine. If it stipulates, that you have to find 15 people supporting you in terminating the contract, that's fine. If it states that the other party can terminate for any and all reasons, including no reason, that's what the contract says, and fine. The contract would have to establish that you actually have a process, and how it is handled. My hypothesis is that these common practices combined with the plain language of the TOS of these social media platforms that grant complete autonomous impunity to the platform[...] This part is correct. They have the complete impunity because of how the contract is written. However, that does not make the contract illusory: you can decide not to agree to it and not go to the place, so it is mutual acceptance. Both sides are bound to perform something until the contract is terminated. An illusory contract would be that Alice gets 2000 USD for nothing (only one side performs). But both sides perform. The contract is to follow the TOS in exchange for site access. Both sides offer something: access in exchange for adherence to rules. The claim of non-mutuality is frivolous: If you claim &quot;I don't agree to the TOS and contract&quot;, you can't at the same time get the benefits of the contract either: you signed the contract to follow the TOS in exchange to access the site, and if you don't want to follow the TOS, you have to terminate the contract and can't access the site. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Also, there is a severability clause, which is valid: even if a clause would be illegal, it would be replaced by the closest legal clause, overwritten by the legal minimum, or removed, whichever is the least impact. The rest of the TOS is untouched and fully valid. Your conclusion is wrong and meritless.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.