Please replied to my classmates post for example you might start hello nice post:
post 1 Claudia wrote this:
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
- Do you think there was a contract between the Mesaros and the United States?
Based on the information provided, I do not believe there was a contract between Mesaros and the United States
- Why or why not – describe the elements that were or were not present?
There are a couple of reasons why I don’t believe the above parties were in a contract. To begin, the U.S. Mint mailed an advertisement package. “As a general rule, advertisements for the sale of goods, even at specific prices, generally are treated as invitations to make an offer.” (Cheeseman, 2016) The package included an order form. To me the order form was the indicated way for the Mesaros to make an offer. The response of sending the form back indicated that the Mesaros made an offer. The United State would respond to the offer once the credit card was approved. I also don’t believe there was “meeting of the minds” of both parties. The Offeror thought they were the Offeree. Not having “meeting of the minds” indicates that there is no agreement. Furthermore, a contract is not valid without both, an offer and a acceptance. There is no indication The United States accepted the offer. I think it was actually rejected at the point the Mesaros were notified the supplies was no longer available.
- Identify another case/situation no more than 12 months old dealing with similar circumstances
From my research, there is a lot of cases with questionable contracts in the entertainment industry, especially when the entertainer is deceased. For example, Prince’s record company is suing Jay Z’s company for streaming Prince’s songs on the Tidal music service without permission after his death. Jay Z’s company argues that Prince allowed it, and Prince’s record company argues the agreement was only from one album. This shows the importance of “being on the same page” when making and agreement/contract. Now, Jay Z’s company needs to prove that Prince agreed to all songs. My assumption is that the agreement does not say specifically what songs or how many of them. So does this mean the agreement is void because of lack of clarity?
- What would you do differently to eliminate the problems?
In the Mesaros and the United States case, I would have put something in the package regarding the limited supplies and the most effective way to “make and offer” (payment method) that would not be prolong the acceptance or rejection of the offer.
On the other hand, the entertainment industry needs to pay very close attention to their contracts. They need to be as clear as possible and try to foresee as many situations as possible. They need to take into account what happens after a celebrity dies. Every time I hear of a celebrity’s death, a couple of days later come the disputes about their assets.
Cheeseman, Henry R.. Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (Page 202). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.
Post 2 Rachel wrote this:
Do you think there was a contract between the Mesaros and the United States?
I do not believe there was a contract between Mesaros and the United States. The Mesaros’ simply responded to a general offer that was given to everyone under the condition that there was 500,000 made. This is not a contractual agreement and is not sustainable under law. If there was an offer from either the Mesaros’ or the United States and signed and agreed upon, then that would be sustainable. The general offer made by the United States was only given under the idea that there is a limited amount. I believe this was not a matter of contractual obligation. If that was the case, then everyone in line for a flat screen during black friday shopping would have a case. A advertisement is defined as: “An invitation to make an offer or an actual offer” (Cheeseman, 2016). This was a case that involved an advertisement that gave the opportunity to make an offer, not an actual contract.
Why or why not – describe the elements that were or were not present?
The idea that the consumer ordered a specific item, does not equal a legally binding contract. This specific case left many facts unresolved. It was not specified if the mint gave the Mesaros’ $1,675 of the new coins that cost much more or did not process the credit card at all. I assume their credit card was not processed at all. If it was processed for a lesser quantity at a higher amount, I would argue that this is a case for false advertisement. Since this is a case for contractual agreement, I would have to disagree with the plaintiff’s stand.
Identify another case/situation no more than 12 months old dealing with similar circumstances
Melissa Cook was a surrogate for a single man. She became pregnant with triplets and the father decided he wanted one of them aborted. Since there was no clause in their contract to say whether Cook could refuse or the father had a legal obligation to force Cook to perform an abortion. The courts would not force her to perform an abortion and Cook planned to carry all babies to full term, adopt the unwanted third child, and collect her full surrogacy fee. She would also like the courts to rule that her surrogacy contract is unenforceable (O’Reilly, 2016).
What would you do differently to eliminate the problems?
The problem with the Mesaros’ case is blatantly a advertisement and not an actual agreement. The Cook case is much more complicated and could affect future surrogacy contract cases. This is why it is so important to read every contract and discuss every possibility when it comes to contracts and agreements.
O’Reilly, K. (2016, November 15). When Parents and Surrogates Disagree on Abortion. Retrieved November 16, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/surrogacy-contract-melissa-cook/463323/
Post 3: Nicole wrote this:
I believe that public policy should treat this subset of the population closely with how they treat poor mothers. If a poor father is needing to pay child support, he should be able to receive benefits as well. Like the article states, if fathers are expected to pay child support, they should receive the same employment enhancing program opportunities as mothers do. I also think that it may be helpful for poor fathers to receive state benefits as well such as food stamps if the children have visitation rights with them. All situations are different, but if a poor father is paying child support as well as having visitation with his kid(s), he will of course need to provide meals. I do think that employment is a big issue that can definitely help rectify the issue. If more job assistance programs are made as available to underprivileged fathers as they are to mothers, their rate of unemployment can go up and in turn help with child support.
Sorensen, E., Zibman, C. (2001) Poor Dads Who Don’t Pay Child Support: Deadbeats or Disadvantaged? The Urban Institute. Series B, No. B- 30. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/…
Post 4 James wrote this:
In the United State there is an increasing amount of non-residential
fathers, many of whom do not pay child support. This fact has been
incorporated into conservative rhetoric aimed at; stigmatizing
‘deadbeat’ fathers; the deterioration of the family unit; and the
growing number of single mothers who are ‘living off the government.’
Conservatives often use this stigma in order to justify capping or
decreasing appropriations to social programs in order to ‘reduce deficit
spending and promote self sufficiency’ – a keystone of current
Sadly, the curtailment of these social
programs effects the poorest in our society the most. Within the poorest
of Americans, 2.5 million non-residential fathers do not pay any type
of formal child support, as opposed to the 4.5 million non-resident
fathers who are do not pay child support and are not considered poor.
Furthermore, 29% of the 2.5 million poor non-child support paying
fathers are incarcerated; 33% have no phone; and 43% have no high school
education. Any one of these qualities could keep someone out of work. The conservative stigma stems from value based assessments of
poverty and non-resident fathers instead of statistical evaluation. The
goals of this line of thinking would simply not be achieved. Instead,
these policies would hinder already marginilized populations of poor
individuals, instead of the 4.5 million that these value based
assessments are at their core trying to address.
Dear writer what would you replied to these classmates give your opinion about their post.