Skip to main content

The Other Side of Hand-Shake Deals

In a prior post I said how The Profit's Marcus Lemonis should probably stop with the hand-shake deals because the risk is that hand-shake deals (or "oral contracts") may not be enforceable as contracts; you usually need the agreement in writing. (Although oral contracts can be enforceable--it's complicated.)

So it makes you wonder. Why would Lemonis do his hand-shake deals knowing they may not be enforceable agreements? He's no dope. He's a shrewd businessman. Lee Iacocca was his mentor.

Is it a gimmick for the show? Maybe, but the consequences can be an unenforceable agreement and an "expensive lawsuit" (in his words), as in A. Stein Meats.

Lemonis says he does hand-shake deals as a kind of old-school, my word is my bond, kind of thing.

I'm not so sure. The other side of his hand-shake agreements is that they give Lemonis a backdoor out of a deal that looks like it's not so good after all, e.g. the Swanson's Fish Market episode. As in "You think I'm breaching our contract? Try and enforce that agreement in court!"

Just speculation on my part.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more