Commercial Law, Contracts, and Ecommerce

When addressing the IRS’s gifts to film stars, an easy three-phase framework with an initiation, body and conclusion should be followed.
Learn about the kind of contributions that movie stars receive and the requirements that they use to identify these gifts as ordinary products or services. Tell students about the taxation policy of the federal income and the limits on movie star contributions.
Body: why movie star contributions should be considered taxable products and services would be necessary to explain why. For instance, some of the awards contain goods and services of high total value, meaning that they fall within the tax bracket according to income tax policy. Most gifts fall under the category of luxury goods and services, a characteristic that makes them attract very high taxes. When making these points, it will be necessary to follow the “rule of three,” which is a structure for making the speech memorable. Use at least three real-world examples to make the speech more practical.

Conclusion: provide a final summary of the main points covered and give the students opportunity to participate in the discussion by asking questions. You can decide to respond to these questions or make it an open forum for any student to give answers.

Discussion 2: Norma English’s Case

Ideally, there should be no enforceable contract between Laurie Montgomery, Michael and Norma English. According to the Mirror rule, for there to be an existence of acceptance, the offered is under obligation to accept the terms as stated in the offer (Schwartz & Scott, 2003). As such, English made an offer of house purchase to Montgomery which also included home paving stone and a fireplace screen which was not accepted by Montgomery. Therefore, English’s oversight to the fundamental changes by Montgomery does not indicate acceptance of the house according to the mirror rule of counteroffer (Schwartz & Scott, 2003). As a result, there is no existence of an enforceable contract between the parties regarding the original offer.

Discussion 3: “Wells Fargo’s Unilateral Mistake”

The case of Wells Fargo’s unilateral error does not establish enough grounds for setting aside a judicial sale. This is a case of “inadequacy of price” that resulted after the clerk accepted Mr. Martin’s bid by announcing, “Sold!” The inadequacy would only be considered gross if the sale showed mistakes such as inadvertent sale, deceit, indiscretion, or misconduct on the part of the buyer or other individuals connected with the sale (Kronman, 1978). Even though the paralegal’s error may be considered a mistake, it may be hard for a court of law to reverse the order preventing a motion to proceed with the sale, especially when the error was unilaterally made by the complainant. Mr. Martin acted upon the goodwill of purchase, and therefore, equity must prevail to avert the wrong results.

Discussion 4: “David’s Electronic Signature”

“David’s electronic signature is enforceable against him.” This is according to the E-sign Act that considers electronic signatures to be legally binding (Reed, 2001). According to the Act, e-signature has the same force, effect, and consequence as pen-inscribed signature done on a piece of paper (Reed, 2001). Details such as password, name, smart card number, fingerprint, mail address, and telephone number can be used to ascertain David’s electronic signature and can as well be used by Inet to recover the license fee.

References

Kronman, A. T. (1978). Mistake, disclosure, information, and the law of contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1-34.

Reed, C. (2001). Legally Binding Electronic Documents: Digital Signatures and Authentication. The International Lawyer, 89-106.

Schwartz, A., & Scott, R. E. (2003). Contract theory and the limits of contract law. Yale Law Journal, 541-619.