Yes, Vokes would have the right to void the contract. The contract is fraudulent because mutual assent is not present. Arthur Murray Inc. destroyed the element of mutual assent because they misrepresented the truth. The led Vokes on by lying to her, and claiming she had talent. The company vowed to make her dreams come true, and anyone could have a hard time declining something that promised such a feat. The company clearly manipulated Vokes, and I think she should definitely void the contract. Each of the four parts of this contract are executory because none of the parts have been completed yet. The contract will be considered executed once parts (a) through (d) are completed at the end of a period of five years. Each element of this contract aims to give Dowling’s business over to Peter 's. Through contracts, the selling of tools, responsibilities of warranties, and Dowling remaining a consultant all eventually work to complete the transition. Once the four parts are completed, the contract is executed. O’keefe took the time and effort to drive out to the dealer, but legally there had been no binding agreement made. The advertisement was merely an invitation to negotiate, and not a definite statement to agree upon. Price tags, in store windows, and advertisements are often placed to bring in customers. Once the …show more content…
Silence can be considered a form of acceptance, and Ivanov clearly followed the instructors to not reply as she was told. Remington and Sinclair are attempting to cover their mistake by claiming no contract had ever been established. If Ivanov still has record of the written proposal that Remington and Sinclair Stores offered along with proof that she did not reply, she would have direct evidence that she was in the right. It is scary that silence can be considered a form of acceptance, however it is clear that they originally had wanted Ivanov to agree and show that she agreed without giving a