Legal Analysis Paper

本文主要是一篇法律分析的paper论文。文章主要从玛丽·简和彼得·帕克的观点来分析其中二人各自的陈词，进一步判定谁对谁错。

As far as I’m concerned, Peter Parker and Mary Jane will make their arguments in this way:

1．Mary Jane’s argument:
Even though I told Peter Parker about my willingness to work with him, it is just informal. Actually, I said that words just out of politeness.
After the interview, I didn’t give Peter Parker any formal offer about the job.
Peter Parker didn’t contact me to confirm that he had got the job before he came to Washington D.C.  So Peter should bear the duty of negligence.
Analysis:
(A) Mary Jane didn’t make an legal offer
The Business Law tells us a legal offer requires the offeror, the offeree, and the offer. So whether Mary Jane should compensate for Peter’s losses depends on whether Mary made a legal offer.
A legal offer means a proposal freely made by one party to another indicating a willingness to enter a contract. Furthermore, there are three basic requirements of an offer: serious intent, clear and reasonably definite terms and communication.
Firstly, the offeror’s words didn’t give Peter assurance that a binding agreement was intended, so the offer didn’t have a serious intent. Secondly, Mary Jane didn’t use any terms to remove any doubt about the contractual intentions of the offeror, so the offer didn’t have clarity and reasonably definite terms. Finally, Mary Jane and Peter Parker didn’t have desirable communication. Peter Parker didn’t tell Mary Jane about what he thought, so communication between the offeror and the offeree was not enough. All in all, Mary Jane will hold the argument that she didn’t give a legal offer to Peter Parker.
(B)Peter Parker didn’t show that he had accepted the “offer”. (Although it’s not an offer, Peter believes it was.)
After Mary Jane said she looked forward to working with him, Peter Parker didn’t confirm Mary’s meaning or said he was willing to accept the job. Even before Peter quitted his job, he didn’t tell Mary about his acceptance.
Communication of acceptance involves 4 ways. They are Face-to-Face and Telephone Communication, Long-Distance Communication, Text Messages and the Uniform Commercial Code. Face-to-face communication can ensure the acceptance is complete and effective when offeror hears the words of acceptance. Telephone communication makes sure that the acceptance is complete and effective. Text messages make sure that the acceptance is complete when text message is sent, if offeror has asked for a text response. If not, the acceptance is complete when sent, only if a text message is faster than the requested method. Authorized means of communication makes sure that the acceptance is complete and effective when given by that same medium. And finally, acceptance improperly dispatched makes sure that acceptance is compete and effective when it actually reaches offeror.
In the case, Peter didn’t show his acceptance in any way. So Mary Jane will hold the argument that Peter Parker didn’t show that he had accepted the “offer”.
(C) Mutual Assent. From what we analyze above, we can draw a conclusion that Mary Jane and Peter Parker didn’t have a mutual assent on the job. So it seems that Mary Jane has enough reason to reject Peter Parker’s demand of compensation.
2. Peter Parker’s argument:
Maybe “I look forward to working with you” was just out of politeness, but I believe “Please let me know if I can help you prepare for your move to Washington D.C.” was not.
I’m a marketing executive and I was there to have an interview, so I have enough reason to believe that Mary Jane’s invitation was of sincerity. After all, she is the sole owner of Elite Advertising Services and she has enough power to invite me to join her company.
I believe we have a mutual assent because we both talk to each other with sincerity. Although she didn’t make a legal offer and I didn’t show my acceptance legally, I believe we had reached an agreement.
Analysis:
(A)We may agree that “I look forward to working with you” is sometimes out of politeness. But when Mary Jane said she want to help Peter Parker to move to Washington D.C, she was misleading Peter to believe he had got the job offer. What Peter thought was reasonable.
(B)Peter Parker is not a new graduate who is lack of working experiences, but a marketing executive with lots of experience. So it’s quite likely that Mary Jane wants to persuade him to come to her company. It’s reasonable that Peter Parker believe Mary gave him the offer.
(C)In the interview, Mary showed much interest on Peter Parker. And Peter also showed his interest because he came for the interview from another city which took lots of time. In the interview, Mary and Peter both showed interest to each other. We can believe they had a mutual assent.
3. Conclusion:

From the analysis above, we can figure out that Mary Jane has more legal reason to prove that they didn’t have a mutual assent on the job. But law should be use reasonably. Peter Parker also has reasonable reason to confirm that he has got the job. If I was the judge, I will decide that Mary Jane should pay a part of Peter’s losses. Although she didn’t give a legal offer, she mislead Peter Parker to believe that he had got the job.

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。