The Use of Contract to Protect Property Rights: Assignment Sample

What type of intellectual property was at issue in this case? Were these ideas entitled to protection under the law?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In this case, the type of intellectual property which was at issue is the use of ideas for Chihuahua character by Taco Bell to work with the Wrench LLC. Taco Bell did not pay anything to Wrench LLC because of using the dog character advertisement. This resulted in Taco Bell being taken to court because of breaching the implied-in-fact contract.

These ideas were protected under the law. Through having a continuous development of Chihuahua mascot, Taco Bell was expected to be paying for the services provided by Wrench LLC. Through this, and failing to return the ideas which had been developed by Wrench LLC, it was right for Wrench to claim that it was indeed working on behalf of Taco Bell while developing its dog character. After the presentation of the commercial idea by Wrench LLC using its dog character, Taco Bell went ahead to provide the same material to another organization (Anschell, J. H., Hodulik, & Rohrer, 2003). They did not pay Wrench even if the advertisement had been aired utilizing exact idea which was proposed by the Wrench Company. Because Taco Bell failed to reject the Chihuahua idea and gave it to a second organization, and did not pay for services by Wrench, Taco Bell was considered to have indeed broken an implied contract.

Explain the difference between an implied-in-law (quasi-contract) and an implied-in-fact contract. What type of contract was at issue in this case?

An implied-fact-contract refers to a kind of contract whereby the law infers typically from the conduct, circumstances, act or the relationship of the parties' involved instead of acquiring it from the parties' spoken words (Moll, 2000). On the other hand, an implied in law contract refers to the obligations mainly imposed through the law to attain equity, mostly meant to prevent a situation of unjust enrichment which is determined as if there existed a contract.

The type of contract, in this case, was an implied-in-fact contract. This is because some elements had been established to develop the implied-in-fact contract as Wrench LLC gave services to Taco Bell and expected to be paid by Taco Bell after it provided the exact serves to a second organization. The role of the implied fact contract implies that the parties that are involved require adhering to all their promises as well as not revoking the contract (Burk, 2004). In this case, Taco Bell ted to act ethically hence it was a case of implied contract since Taco Bell had verbally decided to work with the partners in the marketing industry. Additionally, the other leading role of the recognition implied in fact contract indicates that plaintiff may claim damages that are in the form of the monetary awards when the defendant has been found violated given a contract.

Explain what the parties could have done differently to protect their rights and avoid this dispute.

There are certain things that the parties could have done differently for them to avoid the dispute. The idea behind recognizing the implied-in-fact contract is having individual working on good faith with the expectation that they will have to be compensated for the work that they do. Therefore, if both parties understood this law, it could have assisted the plaintiff and the defendant in knowing what was mainly expected when individuals were offering services or property. In the case involving Taco Bell, the implied in fact contract existed since Wrench LLC had offered a marketing service to the Taco Bell organization. When Wrench LLC expected that Taco Bell would pay it, Taco Bell failed to make any payment. To avoid the dispute, Taco Bell needed to pay Wrench Bell for the services that it had gotten from Wrench through using the amount of money which was made as a result of the marketing idea.

Explain how a properly written contract could have been utilized for the licensing and use of the intellectual property to prevent the issue, and provide terms you would recommend being included in such a contract.

To avoid the issue in the case involving Taco Bell vs. Wrench LLC, there would have been a well-written contract which would have been used in licensing as well as using the intellectual property in preventing dispute. There should have been a valid and written contract which would act to transfer all the legal rights of the organizations (Afori, 2008). The terms that I would recommend to be included in the written contract would be the material ownership, liability, and the scope of the work to be performed.

Identify and explain each of the elements that would have been necessary to form a valid contract

One of the features of a valid contract is offer and acceptance. The initial stages in the creation of a contract are an offer by one party and have its acceptance by the other party. When the offer becomes accepted, it is considered as an agreement. The other critical element of a contract is the parties' mutual consent. While constituting a valid contract, then both parties should agree upon a similar thing, at the same time and in a similar sense. The other element of a valid contract is having the intention of creating a legal obligation. The agreement should develop legal obligation besides the offer and acceptance. Both parties should have the plan to appear in the court of law whenever the other partner fails to meet their promises. The other critical element of a valid contract is the right object. The object of the agreement should be lawful. It should not be unlawful, fraudulent, immoral or be opposing to the public policy.

References

Afori, O. F. (2008). Implied license: an emerging new standard in copyright law. Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. LJ, 25, 275.

Anschell, J. H., Hodulik, J. B., & Rohrer, A. S. (2003). The Whole Enchilada: Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp. and Idea Submission Claims. Comm. Law., 21, 1.

Burk, D. L. (2004). Intellectual property and the firm. The university of Chicago Law Review, 3-20.

Moll, D. K. (2000). Reasonable Expectations v. Implied-in-Fact Contracts: Is the Shareholder Oppression Doctrine Needed. BCL Rev., 42, 989.