Discussion 4 - Verbal statement or the writing on the napkin would fall under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) PDF

Preview

Summary

The CEO of a company called Hot Coffee went to the local bar to have a few drinks with friends. She meets another entrepreneur who just opened a coffee shop called Cool Shot. Over several drinks, the two become immersed in conversation about how their companies could work together. They are jokin...

Description

Last Name 1 The CEO of a company called Hot Coffee went to the local bar to have a few drinks with friends. She meets another entrepreneur who just opened a coffee shop called Cool Shot. Over several drinks, the two become immersed in conversation about how their companies could work together. They are joking and laughing about coffee mugs sales when the Hot Coffee CEO says, "if you can sell ONE of my coffee mugs for $1,000, I will GIVE you 1,000 mugs for $1," and then falls off her stool in laughter. By the end of the night, the two business owners end up with a napkin signed by both of them stating "Hot Coffee will provide 200 of its collector's edition coffee mugs to Cool Shot by the first of the month and in exchange, Cool Shot will hang Hot Coffee posters in its shop, will display and sell Hot Coffee mugs, and will use Hot Coffee mugs for marketing raffles." Review the supplemental resources for Module 4 as you prepare your post and responses to other students. In your discussion post: 

Discuss whether the verbal statement by the Hot Coffee CEO would be considered a valid and enforceable contract;



Discuss whether the writing on the napkin would be considered a valid and enforceable contract; and,



Discuss whether either the verbal statement or the writing on the napkin would fall under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.). Why or why not? For full points, you must use the terminology and concepts from the textbook to support

your argument.

Last Name 2

In order to enact the “meeting of the minds” between two parties, both parties need to be fully cognizant as to the terms of a contract. In this instance the CEO of Hot Coffee was already in the process of voluntary intoxication when the own of Cool Shot approached her. According to the Western Australian Department of Racing Games and Liquor some behavioral traits an inebriated individual may exhibit are ; (1) Rambling conversation, such as the lengthy talk between Hot Coffee’s CEO and Cool Shot’s owner; (2) Inability to maintain a physical sense of balance, hence the CEO of Hot Coffee falling off her stool; (3)Being loud, boisterous, or having the inability to control certain emotions, Hot Coffee CEO laughing very boisterously over a theoretical contact which was not yet drawn up. The verbal terms that were discussed were arguably voidable considering neither party has definitive evidence proving the agreements conditions. As for the written terms on a cocktail napkin, according to Florida Law contacts signed while one party is inebriated or unaware to the conditions is arguably voidable in a court of law. Theoretically if the Hot Coffee CEO was not intoxicated at the time of the agreement then the napkin records essential elements that would validate a contract. The ending terms of the agreement fall meet the UCC requirements for a contract in both Articles 2 and 2A, where merchandise and leasing exceeds $500-$1000 dollars and states the frauds.

Work Cited: https://www.tuplerlaw.com/is-contract-signed-while-impaired-valid/ https://www.rgl.wa.gov.au/docs/defaultsource/rgl/identifying_the_signs_of_intoxication.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://bconline.broward.edu/d2l/le/content/378171/viewContent/10198980/View

Last Name 3 Hello, While I agree that the contract proves and equitably value for both parties I must disagree since both the CEO of Hot Shot entered the agreement intoxicated and potentially unaware of the stipulations of a contract. The owners of Cool Shot approached the Hot Coffee CEO in a bar, he could've knowingly taken advantage of the CEO when drafting the contract. Great post,...