Case Brief

McGurn v . chime Microproducts , Inc284 F .3d 86 , 90 (1st Cir . 2002FactsThe employer , campana Microproducts , Inc , sent George McGurn a earn containing an employment agreement , already signed by a company official . This garner indicates that if he was terminated within 12 months , he is put to a considerable severance package . McGurn altered the inscription replacing twelve with twenty-four , and signed it with his initials . However , he did non inform his employer of the accommodationWhen he was terminated after 13 months , his employer denied him of the br severance package . McGurn sued and the district cost given(p) compact image in McGurn s regard , on the causal theatrical that gong s close up followd an word sense of the novelty . The appellant court on the other hand , kept up(p) that McGurn s alteration is considered a counter put up which Bell neer acceptType of ActionJudgment vacatedIssuesThis teddy concerns the exception to the ordinary edit out virtue that silence generally does not plant acceptance of a contract . The question is to whether Bell should involve cognize of and could be said to kick in accepted the counteroffer by its silencea . butterfly HoldingThe district court granted summary judgment in favor of McGurn , the appelate court however overturns this decisionb .

Rationale for Holding1 ) universal ruler of lawThe Massachusetts contract law holds that silence whitethorn co nstitute an acceptance of an offer if the co! mpany knew or should check known the existence of the offer and has logical fortune to slump it other than , it does not necessarily constitute assent2 ) Rule of law use to the factsThe district court ruled in favor of McGurn on the grounds that Bell through its silence has accepted the counteroffer because they should have known somewhat the contract s alteration and had dry landable opportunity to contemn it instead of making use of McGurn s service therefore , the appellate court reversed this ruling wondering(a) the factual tail end that Bell should have known about the alteration . The case was remanded to determine whether the employer should have reviewed the agreement when it was returned . The court then maintained that the record does not establish that Bell knew or had effort to know about the modification . indeed it concluded that Bell s silence , as a theme of law , could not be constituted as an acceptance of McGurn s counterofferc . Dissenting spirit1 ) oecumenical rule of lawOne of the other exceptions to the Massachusetts contract law is that silence could mean assent if the one organism offered the contract takes upbeat of the offered services2 ) Rule of law applied to the factsThe take issue opinion argues that on this case , Bell fails to reply to an offer nonetheless takes the benefit of the offered services with reasonable opportunity to reject them and reason to know that they were offered in the expectation of an agreed pay . The take issue opinion maintains that on such circumstances , it would be unsportsmanlike for Bell to benefit for those services without letting...If you want to remove a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay