Briefing Paper: Critical Legal Thinking

Briefing Paper
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Briefing Paper
Critical Legal Thinking
The doctrine of implied-in-fact contract is basically a contract where an agreement between the entities involved has been inferred from their conduct. This doctrine provides that three elements have to be established which include: (i) the plaintiff offered services/property to the defendant gratuitously; (ii) plaintiff expects payment for those services/property provided; and (iii) the defendant had an opportunity to decline but did not do so. Both Taco Bell and Chiat/Day did not act in ethical manner since their idea was not original; they stole it from Wrench LLC. The purpose of recognizing implied-in-fact contract is to avoid an unfair result; to prevent one party from refusing to pay for services or property that the party tacitly accepted at a time when it was possible for that party to reject it (Kinsey, 2011). There was an implied-in-fact contract in this case since Taco Bell tacitly accepted a benefit – an idea presented by Rinks and Shields – at time when it was possible for Taco Bell to reject this idea. The damages that should have been awarded to the plaintiffs include plaintiffs’ expenditures, amount Taco Bell would have paid Wrench LLC for the services, and attorney’s fees (Kinsey, 2011).
Law Case
Using liquidated damage clauses is good for business since it will make the contractor to finish the contract the deadline. These clauses should be utilized in assigning fiscal responsibility to the contractor for damages which the owner is likely to incur incase the specified schedule is not met. Liquidated damage clauses should not be used in punishing either party for violating the contract. They should also not be utilized in situations in which the schedule might be impossible or hard to attain (Kinsey, 2011).
Critical Legal Thinking Case
1.11 Cybersquatting: the E & J. Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs L...