Case 9-1: Facebook V. Winklevosses
1. Case 9-1: Facebook v. Winklevosses The settlement agreement is enforceable. Based on the four necessary conditions on constructing a valid (bilateral contract in this case) contract: (1) Agreement: Winklevosses agreed that he has “no further right to assert against Facebook” and “no further claims against Facebook and its related parties” in exchange for cash and Facebook stock from Zuckerberg (promise for a promise); (2) Consideration: What Zuckerberg offered was a legal value in exchange for Winklevosses promises; (3) Contractual Capacity: Both parties are under legal majority to construct and sign a contract; (4) Lawful Object: there is no illegal activity or force related to the contract. Therefore, the contract is valid and under
…show more content…
In this case, the general release was a bilateral contract because Marder agreed to “release and discharge Paramount Picture Corporation of and from each and every claim, demand, debt, liabilility, cost and expense of any kind or character which have risen or are based in whole or in part on any matters occurring at any time prior to the date of this Release” (Cheeseman, 2015, P.186) in order to receive $2,300 as an exchange. The release stated clearly on what the offeror offered and what the offeree promised in order to receive the offer. Without any misleading activity and illegal consideration, both parties agreed to perform their promise. Under this release, Marder was no longer to own the copyright related to the Flashdance, even Flashdance was a movie based on the life of Marder. Marder acted unethically in bringing this lawsuit because Marder accepted the terms and conditions in the general release and then signed. Therefore, Marder agreed that the copyright of her story was worth $2,300 at that moment. No matter the movie was successful or not, Marder had no right to claim that she could own the copyright partially. Furthermore, base on the release, Paramount owned the copyright of Flashdance, and there was no ethical duty to pay Marder more money after the movie Flashdance became a
In this case, the general release was a bilateral contract because Marder agreed to “release and discharge Paramount Picture Corporation of and from each and every claim, demand, debt, liabilility, cost and expense of any kind or character which have risen or are based in whole or in part on any matters occurring at any time prior to the date of this Release” (Cheeseman, 2015, P.186) in order to receive $2,300 as an exchange. The release stated clearly on what the offeror offered and what the offeree promised in order to receive the offer. Without any misleading activity and illegal consideration, both parties agreed to perform their promise. Under this release, Marder was no longer to own the copyright related to the Flashdance, even Flashdance was a movie based on the life of Marder. Marder acted unethically in bringing this lawsuit because Marder accepted the terms and conditions in the general release and then signed. Therefore, Marder agreed that the copyright of her story was worth $2,300 at that moment. No matter the movie was successful or not, Marder had no right to claim that she could own the copyright partially. Furthermore, base on the release, Paramount owned the copyright of Flashdance, and there was no ethical duty to pay Marder more money after the movie Flashdance became a