Minnesota Contracts Legal Questions

There are many other factors which would determine whether you had an enforceable contract, but there's no reason that an agreemeent made over Facebook couldn't be a binding contract.  Assuming that you had a valid contract, you would have a claim against the seller for the difference between the price you agreed to pay and the price you had to pay to replace the items you had contracted  to buy.... Read More

There is no way to answer that question without knowing what the contract provides.  What does the contract say?  If the contract prohibits your situation than it may still be unenforceable, because such provisions are not always favored by the Courts, but you probably could not know for sure if it would be enforced until you took the job and got sued. ... Read More

Assuming that the text can be authenticated as having come from you, probably.  Of course, you can rebut the text, saying that somebody else sent it from your phone or claiming that it didn't represent the actual deal, etc., but the text will probably come in to evidence.  BTW, when somebody gives you $, the assumption is that you are required to pay them back; in order to prevail, you would have to convince the court that it had been a gift, not a loan.... Read More

It's impossible to tell with certainty, but the more limited the restrictions, the more likely it is to be enforced.  For example, a contract prohibiting you from performing any services within 2 miles from your prior office or for any person or entity which had been a customer of your former employer within the past year, is more likely to be enforced than one which is very general, as you've described in your question (I suspect that the actual clause is narrower than you've described).  The enforceability of these clauses is very fact sensitive. depending on, in addition to the breadth of the clausae (how long, over what geographic area, prohibiting what activities) numerous factors including, but not limited to, the nature of your former employer's business and the industry (does it operate worldwide or draw its customers only from the immediate neighborhood, are there repeat customers and a lot of customer loyalty, can you locate potential customers in an online directory or do you need specialized knowledge, etc.), whether your job requires some specialized skill and/or training or can be filled by anyone off the street (e.g. it is much more likely to be enforced if you are an interior designer than if you worked in the store room), your position in your former employer's organization (the clause is much more likely to be enforced against a vice-president than an entry level employee), whether and to what extent your former employer invested time and money in training you and/or acquiring its customers and/or developing its product or services, the extent to which you had contact with your former employer's customers, the extent to which you had access to your former employer's trade secrets or other proprietary information, the degree to which your services are needed to serve the public interest in your community, whether you received additional compensation (beyone just keeping your job) in exchange for the non-compete obligations to which you agreed, etc. etc.  Also, in some cases courts will "blue pencil" non-competes which they think are overbroad, for example if a court thinks 3 months is too long, it may enforce the clause but only for two months.  In other words, it's impossible to be certain about whether the contract will be deemed enforceable without knowing a lot more than you can convey in an email, and even after an attorney has all the facts, the answer likely will still not be black and white, but the attorney will only be able to give you probabilities that you will succeed if you challenge the contract. ... Read More

It's an interesting case and a close call, whether a school has an affirmative duty to inform prospective students (or in this case their parents) about the entire curriculum.  Certainly, if you asked and the school lied, I think that would be a material misrepresentation, and you could void the contract based on fraud in the inducement, but I don't know if there is an affirmative duty to volunteer the information where you didn't ask.  I'm not saying that there isn't, only that it isn't a slam dunk either way.  It could cost more in attorneys' fees to litigate than you've spent on tuition.  On a practical level, moreover, you're being offered a full refund, and your only objection is that you don't want to sign a non-disclosure agreement.  I don't know what you mean about "too broad to trust", but unless you have some reason why you need to mention the experience in the future (and I can understand why you would feel the need to let other parents know about this before they make the same mistake), maybe you should consider the settlement. ... Read More

If the buyer was aware of the forgery, you may be able to have the transaction rescinded and get the car back.  If the buyer was an innocent purchaser, then you will probably be limited to seeking damages from the forger for the value of your part ownership of the car which you lost.  You could also make a criminal complaint to the police, as forger is a crime as well as a tort.... Read More

In all likelihood the answer to your question is going to be addressed in the language of the contract itself. Knowing they way these contracts are typically written they may assure you they will continue searching for a job for you, but in your case that will not do you any good.  In the unlikely event there is some language in the contract addressing your inability to work during the course of the job search period, those provisions would have to be looked at. If the contract does not address what happens if you become unable to work, one position you could possibly take would be to assert "impossibility" which may require them to refund some of the fee. They may well not agree with that theory, and ultimately it would then have to be decided by a judge, an option which you maynor may not feel is justified. I've worked thru chronic back issues for years myself, and seen many clients do the same.  I wish you the best.... Read More

That depends.  If you, or your lawyer, agreed subject to execution of a formal written agreement (which is often the case with settlement agreements), then you have no contract.  For example, if you said "I agree, write it up.", you may have a contract; if you said "I agree, we'll work out the details in the paperwork" you probably don't have a contract.  Also, in some jurisdictions (I don't know about Minnesota), a settlement agreement may have to be in writing, or agreed to in open court, to be binding, and there may be additional formalities required. Assuming that there is no need for a signed writing for a valid settlement agreement in Minnesota, the question is whether you are bound by the additional terms.  Unfortunately, I don't think the answer is black and white.  Normally, there is no contract unless both sides have agreed on all material terms (I'm assuming that the terms to which you object are material).  Here, although you may not have agreed to all material terms, you may be bound by your lawyer's agreement, as he is your agent.  Did your lawyer know that you had not seen his email with the additional terms?  If he thought that you had seen that email and had agreed to the other terms, and he communicated acceptance to the other side, you may be bound by it.  EVen if he knew you had not seen the additional terms, but accepted on your behalf anyway, you could be bound by it (although you could sue the lawyer.)  Alternatively, the agreement might be considered void for mutual mistake; you thought you were agreeing to one thing while the other side thought you were agreeing to something else. I'm sorry I can't give you a short final answer.  If a settlement agreement has to be written and signed to be valid, you're ok.  If not, there are questions.... Read More

Very unlikely.  If the party owed money continually allows the other party to pay late, the first party may waive the right to receive payments exactly on time, but that would not void the entire contract.  Moreover, many contracts contain clauses that provide that consenting to a modification in a given instance (like accepting a late payment) does not constitute a waiver of any contractual rights.... Read More

If your recruiter lied to you to induce you to enter the contract, you may be able to void the contract on the basis of fraud (although if you would have discovered the lies by reading the contract you have little chance of winning), but just the fact that the date is one day off is not sufficient.... Read More

The lack of signature by the other party is probably unimportant, particularly since the parties apparently operated under the agreement for a period of time, and the party who didn't sign (you really don't know that the company didn't sign, only that it didn't provide your son with a copy of the signed agreement) and the nonsigning party delivered a copy of the agreement to your son,  but that doesn't mean that the non-compete provision is enforceable. Unless the parties specifically contemplated that they would not have an agreement until both parties signed (the fact that your son worked for a while pursuant to the contract indicates that this was  not such a case), any court will probably only be concerned that the contract was signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced, i.e. your son, if he is sued for breaching the non-compete clause (known as a restrictive covenant). However, restrictive covenants in employment (although your son may have been an independent contractor, I think his situation would be analyzed the same way as an employee's) are somewhat disfavored (in California they are virtually verboten, but other states are more open to them) and generally will only be enforced to the extent necessary to protect the employer's vital interests.  There are many factors which factor into the analysis of whether a restrictive covenant will be enforced, including whether the employee quit or was fired, whether the employee has any special skills or training, whether the employer spent any time or money training the employee, how long the covenant runs and how wide is the geograpical area it covers, whether there are any trade secrets or confidential information of the employer which are being protected, whether the employee received any additional compensation for entering into the non-compete agreement, whether the employer enforces the such coveants uniformly or selectively, the type of industry in which the parties operate, etc., etc.  My gut feeling from your brief description of your son's job is that this covenant would not be enforced. However, even if a restrictive covenant is not enforceable on its face, courts will sometimes "blue pencil" a clause to make it enforceable.  In other words, if a court deems the 1 1/2 year restriction to be too long, or the geographical scope of the clause too wide, but otherwise thinks the covenant is reasonable, it may modify the restriction to only last for a shorter period or cover a smaller geographical area.... Read More

Assuming that the contract was with the school, not the prior director personally, and assuming that there were no problems with the contract originally, that it had no term limitation (i.e. was supposed to last for five years) and that it hasn't been superceded or modified by a later agreement, yes.... Read More

There was a mistake that the photographer is using to say there is no valid contract.  It is inconsistent for the photographer to say that there is a contract, so the deposit should be returned.  Otherwise, I would require the first contract to be completed, unless both sides agree thee was a mistake as to that contract, in which case there was no "meeting of the minds" and there is no contract.... Read More

As with most answers from a lawyer, I must preface this answer with, "it all depends."  The basic rule is that the obligations of a business do not follow the assets.  There are exceptions.  If the price paid was not "reasonably equivalent" to the value of the assets, the sale can be unwound as a fraudulent conveyance.  This is true, even if there was no intent to harm anyone.  It is enough that that the price was inadequate.  The price, however, takes into consideration the problems the business was having.  There are also some exceptions for particular kinds of debts.  Pensions, union contracts, and a few other particular obligations pose separate problems.  The detail in the bill of sale is another issue.  It sounds like these wee attended to.  Normally I would start by looking at the sales contract and the bill of sale.  I would look to see if it included an assignment of the phone number, etc., Also, the old employees were "re-hired." Did the employees give new I-9s. W-4's etc?   Also, is there any carry over in the payroll?  Did the old business file final tax returns? Was the lease assigned?  Is it operating from a new place of business?  Was the customer list sold?  Were some of the old debts paid by the new company? What about existing contracts?  If all of those things are in order, and from your question, it seems they probably were, then I don't think the creditor has an easy task.  If you want someone to review it in more detail, we can do it, for no fee, and with no obligation.  ... Read More

These are the facts, as I understand them.  You co-signed your daughter's student loan.  Your ex is responsible on the student loan as well, as part of your divorce.  Your daughter dropped out of school and has decided to not pay the loan.  You filed for bankruptcy.  Let me address each of those matters.  When you co-signed the student loan, you became obligated to repay it if your daughter didn't.  There is no forgiveness of the loan because your daughter dropped out of school.  Your daughter isn't paying it, and the student loan company has the right to collect it from you.  You filed for bankruptcy and decided that the loan was not discharged. You may or may not be correctt.  When you filed for bankruptcy your student loan obligation was discharged or not based on whether the repayment would be an undue hardship.  For most people, repayment of a student loan is difficult, but they can still repay it and maintain a basic standard of living. (It is a very high standard to prove to win on undue hardship.)  If a debtor wants the bankruptcy court to tell them if the loan was discharged as part of the bankruptcy, the debtor can bring an action asking the court to declare the student loan to be discharged.  The court does not make it dischargeable.  It makes a declaratory judgment that it finds that the student loan was discharged.  If no action is brought, most people assume the loan was not discharged, but that is just an assumption.  A state court could find a student loan to have been discharged in a bankruptcy case, or the debtor could go back to the court, have the case reopened, and asked the bankruptcy court to make a decision.  This recently happened in an 8th circuit case I have discussed on my web site.  And finally, if your ex was suppose to pay as part of the divorce, you could consider going back into the family court and have the court order it.  We handle those cases as well. ... Read More