In the Case Opener “A Questionable Contract” Mary Kay Morrow was a Hallmark employee joining the organization in 1982. Sometime in 2004 she was fired. Mary Kay Morrow claimed she was terminated because of age discrimination and retaliation because of an earlier complaint about the company policies. At the beginning of 2002 Hallmark adopted the “Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program” which required among other things, that any claim against the company be resolved by binding arbitration rather than litigation. Hallmark had the right to modify the program at any time. Hallmark contended that any employee who remained after the institution of the arbitration program was bound by the policy. Mary Kay Morrow filed her case numerous times in court and every time the court rejected her petition. After her attempts in the courts had failed, she agreed to arbitrate her claim under the “Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program.” The arbitrator made the award in Hallmark’s favor. After the arbitrator’s award, Mary Kay Morrow when back to the trial court with a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling. Her motion was denied. She appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals on the grounds that the “Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program” did not constitute an enforceable contract. The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that:

Question

In the Case Opener “A Questionable Contract” Mary Kay Morrow was a Hallmark employee joining the organization in 1982. Sometime in 2004 she was fired. Mary Kay Morrow claimed she was terminated because of age discrimination and retaliation because of an earlier complaint about the company policies. At the beginning of 2002 Hallmark adopted the “Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program” which required among other things, that any claim against the company be resolved by binding arbitration rather than litigation. Hallmark had the right to modify the program at any time. Hallmark contended that any employee who remained after the institution of the arbitration program was bound by the policy. Mary Kay Morrow filed her case numerous times in court and every time the court rejected her petition. After her attempts in the courts had failed, she agreed to arbitrate her claim under the “Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program.” The arbitrator made the award in Hallmark’s favor. After the arbitrator’s award, Mary Kay Morrow when back to the trial court with a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling. Her motion was denied. She appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals on the grounds that the “Hallmark Dispute Resolution Program” did not constitute an enforceable contract. The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that:

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Because Hallmark retained an unfettered right to alter or terminate the Dispute Resolution Program, its promise was illusory and there was no mutuality of obligation to form a bilateral contract.

1. Relevant legal concepts
- Contract formation requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. For bilateral contracts, both parties must be bound (mutuality of obligation).
- An “illusory” promise (one that allows a party to withdraw or change the promise at will) supplies no consideration and prevents formation of an enforceable contract.
- Arbitration clauses are enforceable only if they are part of a valid contract (i.e., supported by consideration and mutual promises).

2. Step-by-step reasoning
- Hallmark adopted the arbitration program and reserved the right to modify it at any time. That reservation means Hallmark could unilaterally change or rescind the arbitration obligation.
- Employees who remained were said to be “bound,” but Hallmark’s unlimited modification right meant Hallmark itself was not bound to maintain arbitration or any particular terms.
- Because Hallmark’s promise could be changed at will, it was an illusory promise and did not constitute adequate consideration.
- Without consideration and without mutual binding obligations, no enforceable bilateral arbitration contract existed between Hallmark and Mary Kay Morrow.

3. Intermediate logical steps
- Offer: Hallmark’s announced program. Acceptance: employees staying or later agreeing.
- Missing: employer’s binding promise (consideration) because of unlimited modification rights → illusory promise → no contract.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- The Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that Hallmark’s unilateral, unbound position meant there were “no mutually valid promises” to create a bilateral contract. Therefore the arbitration agreement could not be enforced as a contract and the case must be remanded for further proceedings.

5. Why other choices are incorrect
- A wrongly asserts the arbitration agreement was valid and barred court action.
- B incorrectly focuses on a time limit to arbitrate expiring—a factual/legal basis not supported here.
- C wrongly claims both parties made valid promises and that court action was barred.
- E is vague and does not match the court’s specific holding about mutuality and illusory promises.

Conclusion: The Court remanded because Hallmark made no binding promises and no bilateral contract formed, matching answer D.

类似问题

For stock A, we have 𝛽 𝑖 = 0.70. Suppose the expected market risk premium next year is 9% and the risk-free rate is 3%. What is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

The following graph shows the Security Market Line in the current economy. If a stock has a β of 1.2, what is the expected return of this stock based on the CAPM? (Please answer in % and round to 2 decimal places. If the answer is 8.057%, then in the box, write 8.06)

Suppose Apple publicly announces earnings today and the announcement is above market expectations. If markets are semistrong-form efficient, then:

Evidence that investors who trade more often earn lower net returns is most directly related to

Behavioral finance argues that EMH failures require

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单