Talk:Contract/Archive 1

message: If a contract is addressed to 2 partie's ,by one other Co. and both the partie's do not sign as one is unagreeable ,can the contract be void? Or is it still bound to the ONE who was willing to sign or again can it just be a voided contract in the eye's of the law.
:Generally, it is possible to be bound w/o signing a contract but it all depends on the context. Hopefully one day the contract section will be improved enough to have this question answered on one's own. PullUpYourSocks 18:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled section

message: I think that a restaurant would be a better example for an 'implied in fact' contract, especially coming from the perspective of the UK where medical services are free.
Gingekerr 17:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. Enochlau 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implied in Fact 

message: If to be complete, authority needs to be added but this will depend on jurisdiction.
--Philip McNeill 13:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The major problem with law articles on Wikipedia is that one person writes a section, but only adds in authority from his/her jurisdiction (for good reason of course). So, if you are able to patch up where it lacks, please feel free to add it in. See also above for comments about whether we should use the template referencing system, to reduce clutter. Enochlau 14:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Common Law 

message: I was wondering, and I suppose an answer to this should maybe be added somehow in the page, if someone is aloud to add something someone unrelated to the purpose of the agreement in the contract. Say, I sign a contract with someone who wants to sell me book, but I (through my own fault) did not read the entire agreement, and in the agreement, something completely unrelated to the sell was added such as a promise to give all my property to the person who sold me the book. Now would the person be aloud to go in court, and with this book-selling contract, win all my property? Wouldn't this be dismissed as a scam, even if I agreed?
Or, would a phone company be allowed to record our phone calls, without a specific reason, even if they added in the contract that they are allowed to do so?
:I don't know what the contract law is in your jurisdiction, but in most U.S. states, I think those kinds of clauses would be held unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability . Such clauses would literally "shock the conscience" of the court.  Plus you might be able to rescind on grounds of fraud---that is, you would not have consented to the execution of the contract if you had been conscious of that clause; and you also might be able to sue for the tort of fraud.  But I'm just guessing.  Are you a law student? --Coolcaesar 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I'm an Australian law student) My contracts is starting to get hazy, but generally it is presumed that you have agreed to the written terms of the contract that you have signed, but as Coolcaesar noted, there may be ways to get around it. Enochlau 00:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspicuousness/Related 

message: What are nominated terms
:I don't know what you mean.  If you're referring to nominate contracts, they are the types of contracts where some terms are implied by law based on the name of the type of contract.  For example, a contract for the sale of goods would usually be a nominate contract because the law will imply many terms unless specifically overridden by express agreement of the parties.  Innominate contracts are those where the only terms are those expressly agreed to by the parties.  --Coolcaesar 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nominated terms 

message: The article says the term of art for sales talk is "puff," but here in the U.S. I was taught in Contracts that it was called "puffing."  Also, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., does not have a definition for "puff," but it does have a definition for "puffing," which includes the following note: "also known as puffery."  I suspect that this is yet another American English v. Commonwealth English difference.  Can anyone let us know exactly where the term "puff" is used instead of "puffing"? --Coolcaesar 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puff or puffing or puffery? 

message: I noticed that there are no reference to estopple at all in the article. Is that because its is seen as two different parts of law? (ie. Common law and equity), or has someone simply forgotten? Sir Jimmy 10:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Estoppel article. But yes, its exclusion is more due to the fact that it hasn't been written rather than an explicit intention to leave it out. enochlau (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estopple 

message: About forking this article:
* Such a major change should not be done without prior discussion. I have reverted it. In particular, a lot of other pages need to be changed (e.g. the pages linked from the infobox), so this change shouldn't be taken lightly.
* Unless we actually have content on contracts in the civil law, it is premature to fork it to common law/civil law articles.
* Never move an article by copying and pasting. Use the move button and then recreate the original article if you really want to do this.
enochlau (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  From what I've read, civil law doesn't have a law of contracts per se, but rather treats it as part of the law of obligations.  Therefore, I think any discussion of civil law contracts should be in a Wikipedia article on the law of obligations which should be linked to appropriately in a See also section in the footer of the Contract article.--Coolcaesar 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork 

message: I am trying to remove direct links to the contractor disambiguation page.  As you'll see, it has a definition there, which is used by a few pages as a link, and seems sensible from those pages (see for example mentor).  The definition does not really belong on the disambiguation page, could it be teased in here somewhere, so it all looks a bit more sensible?  I'll not do anything for a while, as I don't want to over-lengthen or mess about with this article.  A separate page just for a definition seems wrong, and a Wiktionary link in mentor would spoil the article.  Help!
LeeG 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, the definition provided on contractor ("A contractor is a legal term...") is not the legal term as it suggests. My legal dictionary states that a contractor is "the builder of a construction project". The usage suggested seems to be the more general, everyday usage. enochlau (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contractor?