Mitsui Bank hired Ross Duncan as a branch manager in one of its Southern Califor

Mitsui Bank hired Ross Duncan as a branch manager in one of its Southern California locations. At that time, Duncan received an employee handbook informing him that Mitsui would review his performance and salary level annually. In 2018, Mitsui decided to create a new lending program to help financially troubled businesses stay afloat. It promoted Duncan to be the credit development officer (CDO) and gave him a written compensation plan. Duncan’s compensation was to be based on the new program’s success and involved a bonus and commissions based on new loans and sales volume. The written plan also stated, “This compensation plan will be reviewed and potentially amended after one year and will be subject to such review and amendment annually thereafter.” Duncan’s efforts as CDO were successful, and the business-lending program he developed grew to represent 25 percent of Mitsui’s business in 2019 and 40 percent by 2020. Nevertheless, Mitsui refused to give Duncan a raise in 2019. Mitsui also amended Duncan’s compensation plan to significantly reduce his compensation and to change his performance evaluation schedule to every six months. When he had still not received a raise by 2020, Duncan resigned as CDO and filed a lawsuit claiming breach of contract. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
1. What are the four requirements of a valid contract?
2. Did Duncan have a valid contract with Mitsui for employment as credit development officer? If so, was it a bilateral or a unilateral contract?
3. What are the requirements of an implied contract? 4. Can Duncan establish an implied contract based on the employment manual or the written compensation plan? Why or why not?
In the US, when a party alleges that contract performance is impossible or impracticable because of circumstances unforeseen at the time the contract was formed, a court will either discharge the party’s contractual obligations or hold the party to the contract. In other words, if a court agrees that the contract is impossible or impracticable to perform, the remedy is to cancel the contract. Under German law, however, a court may adjust the terms of (reform) a contract in light of economic developments. If an unforeseen event affects the foundation of the agreement, the court can alter the contract’s terms to align with the parties’ original expectations, thus making the contract fair to the parties.
When a contract becomes impossible or impracticable to perform, which remedy would a businessperson prefer – rescission or reformation? Explain your answer.