Does a Party Responsible for Making Training Available Also Have to Pay for It?
Full Question:
Answer:
The answer will depend on all the facts and contract terms involved, but taken on it's own, the statement about ensuring availability does not necessarily imply that it will be paid for also. It is possible to make a training environment and materials available and have another party be responsible for payment. Price exclusion typically refers to things that are not covered by the sales price. We suggest that you consult a local attorney who can review all the facts and documents involved.
The parol evidence rule applies once parties have agreed to a final, written contract. Once there is a final, written contract between the parties, the parol evidence rule forbids the parties to introduce evidence in court of any previous agreements between the parties on the subject matter of the contract. The parol evidence rule generally permits the judge or jury in a contract dispute to look only at the written contract and not at any previous discussions between the parties. The intent of the parol evidence rule is that all factors that are important to the contract and have been decided by the parties should be stated in the final, written contract. The parol evidence rule does not forbid the introduction of subsequent agreements between the parties.
It will be a matter of subjective determination for the court what a reasonable interpretation is. The general rules of contract law follow a hierarchy of evidence when determining the terms of a vague or incomplete contract, as follows:
a) The terms stated in the discussions and writings exchanged by the parties that don't contradict the contract terms;
b) Terms implied by the current and past conduct of the parties;
c) Terms implied by industry custom and practice; and
d) Terms implied by applicable law, i.e., damages for breach, liability for negligence, jurisdiction and venue, etc.
If you wish to use the legal system to resolve your dispute, you may want to review the following general information regarding contract law and breach of contract actions:
An unjustifiable failure to perform all or some part of a contractual duty is a breach of contract. A legal action for breach of contract arises when at least one party's performance does not live up to the terms of the contract and causes the other party to suffer economic damage or other types of measurable injury. A lawsuit for breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies awarded are designed to place the injured party in the position they would be in if not for the breach. Remedies for contractual breaches are not designed to punish the breaching party. The five basic remedies for breach of contract include the following: money damages, restitution, rescission, reformation, and specific performance. A money damage award includes a sum of money that is given as compensation for financial losses caused by a breach of contract. Parties injured by a breach are entitled to the benefit of the bargain they entered, or the net gain that would have accrued but for the breach. The type of breach governs the extent of damages that may be recovered.
Restitution is a remedy designed to restore the injured party to the position occupied prior to the formation of the contract. Parties seeking restitution may not request to be compensated for lost profits or other earnings caused by a breach. Instead, restitution aims at returning to the plaintiff any money or property given to the defendant under the contract. Plaintiffs typically seek restitution when contracts they have entered are voided by courts due to a defendant's incompetence or incapacity.
Rescission is the name for the remedy that terminates the contractual duties of both parties, while reformation is the name for the remedy that allows courts to change the substance of a contract to correct inequities that were suffered. In order to have a rescission, both parties to the contract must be placed in the position they occupied before the contract was made. Courts have held that a party may rescind a contract for fraud, incapacity, duress, undue influence, material breach in performance of a promise, or mistake, among other grounds.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels one party to perform, as nearly as practicable, his or her duties specified by the contract. Specific performance is available only when money damages are inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the breach.
Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract, because one party has relied on the promise of the other, it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. Promissory estoppel arises from a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forebearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forebearance in binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Detrimental reliance is a term commonly used to force another to perform their obligations under a contract, using the theory of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise was made; reliance on the promise was reasonable or foreseeable; there was actual and reasonable reliance on the promise; the reliance was detrimental; and injustice can only be prevented by enforcing the promise. Detrimental reliance must be shown to involve reliance that is reasonable, which is a determination made on an individual case-by-case basis, taking all factors into consideration. Detrimental means that some type of harm is suffered.
Reasonable reliance is usually referred to as a theory of recovery in contract law. It was what a prudent person might believe and act upon based on something told by another. Sometimes a person acts in reliance on the promise of a profit or other benefit, only to learn that the statements or promises were either incorrect or were exaggerated. The one who acted to their detriment in reasonable reliance may recover damages for the costs of his/her actions or demand performance. Reasonable reliance connotes the use of the standard of an ordinary and average person.
