Fraudulent misrepresentation Requirement of the Offer FACTS: Technical Consumer

Question

Fraudulent misrepresentation Requirement of the Offer

FACTS: Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (TCP) makes and distributes energy-efficient lightening products. Emily Bahr was TCP’s district sales manager in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota when the company announced the details of a bonus plan. A district sales manager who achieved 100 percent year-over-year sales growth and a 42 percent gross margin would earn 200 percent of his or her base salary as a bonus. TCP retained absolute discretion to modify the plan. Bahr’s base salary was $42,500. Her final sales results for the year showed 113 percent year-over-year sales growth and 42 percent gross margin. She anticipated a bonus of $85,945, but TCP could not afford to pay the bonuses as planned, and Bahr received only $34,229. In response to Bahr’s claim for breach of contract, TCP argued that the bonus plan was too indefinite to be an offer.

ISSUE: Is TCP correct? Explain. [Bahr v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc., 601Fed.Appx. 359 (6th Cir. 2015)]

You will be responsible for the following:
DECISION: Specifically the name of the party. Two to three sentences answering the questions-s at the end of the case.

LEGAL REASONS: Detailed Explanation on why you support the party and/or made the 'Decision'

Explanation / Answer

TCP is correct , because here TCP retained absolute dicsretion to modifty the plan.

As per the absolute discretion clause, TCP can modify the plan and Bahr or court or any other party has no right to counter them. and It wont't be claimed as a breach of contract.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.