What is agreement in the same sense? I'm looking at this site which writes to state The parties to the agreement must have agreed about the subject matter of the agreement in the same sense and at the same time There are simplistic instances online such as the one about an object being purchased from an antique store by a customer for it's aesthetics - and then being discovered to be a fake whereby an action for breach of contract is not applicable because the customer apparently made the purchase for it's aesthetics. I don't understand this because it seems to me the purchase being made in an antique shop would mandate a fake immediately becomes a breach of contract. How is the 'same sense and same time' worded into a contract?
The site that you provide is explaining basics of contract law, and that quote attempts to explicate (and they refer to) the Latin maxim consensus ad idem, generally explained in modern language as &quot;meeting of the minds&quot;. Here is a brief overview of that legal concept. The basis idea is that the parties are talking about the same thing. An example of a lack of meeting of the minds is here, where a complainant agreed to withdraw a complaint in exchange for a service pin plus &quot;any/all straight time compensation&quot; lost. It was later established that the complainant believed that this included time off from work on sick leave, but the agency held that this had already been compensated – thus the parties did not agree to what was &quot;compensation lost&quot;. The &quot;agreement&quot; was thus found to be void, because the parties did not in fact agree on the meaning of the terms. Your purported example would not indicate a lack of meeting of the minds, though it might indicate fraud. A lack of meeting of the minds could arise if the seller intended objects A, C to be items on offer but the buyer believed objects A, B, D to be the offer. It should be noted that the law does not let a person get out of a contract simply by declaring &quot;I thought that...&quot;, the courts will look at the objective evidence as to what the parties did believe.
You are entitled to at least see, and probably get a copy of, any document you sign. If you insist, they will have to show you or give you a copy. It may well be that they are supposed to give you a copy even if you do not ask. But if you are going to insist, allow a bit of extra time at such appointments. If they describe the document, even in rather general terms, your signature is probably binding, unless they have significantly misrepresented the document. If they tell you it is consent to be treated and it is actually an agreement to purchase a timeshare, that would be fraud and the document would not be valid, but that would be very unlikely. There might be some provision that you do not like, but such agreements are usually fairly standard, and also usually not very negotiable if you want service at that office. Still, it is better practice to at least look over and get a copy of any document you agree to.
What credit agreement? A credit agreement involves someone advancing you money which you agree to pay back with interest - there is nothing like this here. You entered a contract for the course the terms of which were that, at your election, you could either pay upfront or pay by monthly instalments. That's not a credit agreement, it's a straightforward contract for services with alternative payment terms. One of the other terms was that if you withdrew then the full amount would be immediately payable. Under normal contract law principles, this is all fine. Consumer Law Under UK consumer law, you have a right to cancel a contract for services formed off-premises if you do so within 14 days. "... around 1 week and then around another week ..." might be within 14 days; if it is, you are entitled to a full refund; if it isn't, you owe the money. There are also rules about what information they needed to give you. If they haven't then they have committed an offence and the contract may also be void.
You mean like this? Of course, a website can charge you to access its pages; many do. And yes, clicking on an "I agree" button can form a valid contract (just visiting the website can't). Historically, the law has adopted the position that if you sign it (including by clicking "I agree") you read it, you understood it and you agreed to it. It's hard to imaging how it could be otherwise because allowing people to get out of contracts by saying "I never read it" is problematical as well. However, there are two things that mitigate against the type of term you suggest; one practical and one legal. Practical: How do they get your money? They can ask for your credits card details and, if they do and you give them a court will probably come to the conclusion that you knowingly and willingly agreed to pay for the service. However, if they don't have any method of getting money from you, they would have to take you to court to do so. There are a number of practical problems with this like: who are you? where are you? Which court can they sue you in etc. Legal: At common law, there exists the doctrine of unconscionability that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favour of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Such terms are legally unenforcable. Further, in many jurisdictions, consumer protection law often give additional protections up to and including not enforcing terms that are merely unfair not just unconscionable.
I think you will find that &quot;sign&quot; here means &quot;mark&quot; and includes a word, a phrase, or a logo, or a combination of any of these. Indeed section 6 of the act defines this: &quot;sign&quot; includes the following or any combination of the following, namely, any letter, word, name, signature, numeral, device, brand, heading, label, ticket, aspect of packaging, shape, colour, sound or scent. The main test is whether the two marks are &quot;confusingly similar&quot; or whether prospective customers are likely to be confused into thinking that one seller is actually the other, or into attributing to one the goodwill or reputation of the other. (This standard is much the same under US law or the laws of a good many other countries.) This is a very fact-intensive determination, and is to some extent a judgement call. But a difference in one letter only, with little or no difference in sound, might well be sufficiently similar to cause confusion. Note that section 10 of the law defines this: For the purposes of this Act, a trade mark is taken to be deceptively similar to another trade mark if it so nearly resembles that other trade mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion, and thus this might well be a case of infringement. Note that for infringement to be found, in addition to the marks being &quot;deceptively similar&quot;, the goods or services must also be similar or in the same category, (or goods &quot;closely related&quot; to protected services or vice versa) unless the mark being infringed on is &quot;well known&quot;.
In other words, you are asking if the contract is exclusive. My own opinion is that there is more than one fair reading of the contract language in isolation. One possible reading is that "for repairs to the property motorcycles" has an implied meaning "for repairs to all of the property motorcycles of Blue" and the other is that it has an implied mean "for repairs to all of the property motorcycles of Blue that it directs us to do work upon." My first step to resolve that ambiguity would be to look at the definition of "property motorcycles" in the contract, and also to any other terms of the contract that would suggest that it is an "exclusive" contract as opposed to a master "supply" contract with an indefinite amount of work. For example, if the price were a fixed one every month, not dependent upon how much work was done, that would tend to suggest an exclusive contract. Similarly, if the contract also contained a geographic scope or a non-competition term that would suggest that it was an exclusive contract. On the other hand, if the arrangement were a fee for service payment and the mechanics under the contract of arranging for maintenance were such that this was really up to Blue, it might be read differently. If the entire language of the contract read together left the ambiguity in place, it would be appropriate to look to extrinsic evidence such as the course of dealings of the parties and the discussions that went into negotiating the contract in order to determine the intent of the parties at the time that the contract was entered into in order to resolve that ambiguity. It isn't at all uncommon for the meaning of a contract term in isolation to have more than one possible reading when taken in isolation. Often, it is necessary to refer to a greater context to describe its meaning. Sometimes, the overall context will even demand that a term in a contract be given the reading that is less plausible when it is read in isolation because the overall context of the contract manifests an intent and scheme that makes the more obvious reading a poor fit to the overall scheme of the agreement.
A salvage title does not negate the value of a vehicle. If there was no fraud (lying about the title) on the owner's part, and if there was actual offer and acceptance (not "negotiations in progress") then the agreement should be binding – but you would have to read the agreement to see if there are any escape clauses that would allow either party to escape the consequences of the agreement.
Since the contingency is in the contract and has not been removed, if the purchase falls through due to not selling the existing property, they will get their earnest money back. That was the whole point of putting the contingency in the contract in the first place.