Want this question answered?
when the condition specified in the contract are not followed then the contract is said to be breached.
A properly written contract, signed by both parties, is tangible evidence of an agreement that is indisputably "legally binding".Generally, the problem with verbal agreements is that there is no evidence they exist. There is only a "he said, and he said" situation. In order to bind the other party to a verbal agreement, the moving party would need to bring an action in a court of equity and provide the judge with enough outside evidence that there was a verbal contract between the parties and the other party has breached it. Without compelling outside evidence such as witnesses, the judge cannot find that any contract existed between the parties.
Unilateral mistakes are said to occur when only one party is at mistake regarding the essential facts of a contract.
Signing two contracts regarding the same matter is fraudulent behavior, at the very least, on the part of the person who signed them both. Breaching a contract is failing to live up to the terms stated in the contract and the punishment for breach is generally stated in the contract. Whether or not a breach of contract has occurred is uncertain without seeing the documents in question. Fraudulent behavior is a crime, however, and the punishment will be decided by the laws of your state.
Silence
My friend asked a 3rd party to sell his car it was a verbal agreement . However this individual breached said verbal agreement and swapped the car for a transit van this is tantamount to theft sad car. My friend asked the 3rd party on various occasions to return the car and he never done so what is you views on this
If a sign in the store said, "All returns must be made within 30 days," that sign becomes part of the contract. Frequently signs warn, "No returns on prom and party dresses.
When one of the parties only does some of what they said they would do. The innocent party does not have to pay them for what they did not do.
the parties do what they said they would do under the contract
it's said to contract.
a contract is said to be provisional when the contract is done provisionally with a provisional agreement and against the contract the work order also issued provisiolally.
It's the consenting party's duty to know what they are consenting to. Sometimes terms in 'legal speak' have a different, or sometimes a more precise meaning than their common definitions. That's why it's a good idea to have a lawyer read through it first. Note that a contract that is misleading or fraudulent is a defense against being held to the terms of it. But simply not understanding something which is stated in the contract, is no defence. The contract holder believes you understood everything, because you said you did.