Issues
The key facts are that Basis and Amazon entered an agreement that allowed these two companies to create separately negotiated contracts for additional services that Basis technology would offer to Amazon. Later, Amazon objected to some actions related to the securities that Basis technology sold. As a result, Basis sued Amazon on some claims involve the securities and also for non-payment of the services that basis offered that were never included in the original agreement. During the trial, the two reached an agreement for settling out of the court through a series of email exchange outlining the settlement. Amazon went back to the agreement, and Basis asked the court to enforce the proposed settlement. The court then ruled for Basis Technology and Amazon appeal.
The issue in the case is whether or not Amazon would be found to have the intent of agreeing on the binding contract proposed by Basis. Another issue was on whether the email constitutes a complete and unambiguous statement of the desire of the parties to be bound by the settlement terms.
Rules
The rule that applies, in this case, is that, for an agreement to be enforceable by a judge, it should have a serious intention of becoming binding, the term should be reasonably definite or certain, and the offer should be communicated to the offeree. In the case of Basis Vs Amazon, during the agreement, the parties did agree on the terms of the contract and manifested to each other mutual assent to the same bargain.
Application
Basis Technology did send an email to Amazon saying the email confirms the essential business terms of the settlement between our respective clients. As a result, Amazon responded to the email by saying ‘correct.’ The email that basis sent did consider the necessary steps by including all the requirements mentions in the rule above. So as to make an offer one needs three things that include material terms, objective intent, and have it clearly communicated. In the case, there were the material terms memorialized in the email; Amazon had the intent of being bound by the terms of the email, and it was clear communication, irrespective of how short-worded the acceptance was.
Case in point
In the case, the court did rule for Basis because it found that through looking at the whole document, the intent of Amazon to accept was clear. What the decision arrived at by the court was right. When considering the case, the email exchange between the two parties constituted an unambiguous agreement on all the material terms; thus, a contract existed (Miller & Cross 2009). Therefore, both parties did have the intention of being bound by that communication in settlement terms. In the case, if the oral contracts are normally binding, then the email contracts can be binding.
Conclusion
The Massachusetts court helped in resolving the case of Basis Technology v Amazon.com. The decision by the Massachusetts appeal court indicates a history of the legislative and judicial trend in treating the electronic communication as being equivalent to the paper communication with controls for authenticity. The Massachusetts court affirmed that Amazon intended to be bound by terms of the email and the court enforced the agreement that Basis technology had written in an email sent to Amazon.
Reference
Miller R & Cross, F (2009). The legal environment of business Cengage Learning
Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in research paper services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for professional research proposal writing services.
