Description of this paper

Who won the case (actual name of the party




Consideration - In 1995, Helikon Furniture Co. appointed Gaede as its independent sales agent for the sale of its products in parts of Texas. The parties signed a one-year contract that specified among other things, the commissions that Gaede would receive. Over a year later, although the parties had not signed a new contract, Gaede was still representing Helikon when it was acquired by a third party. Helikon's new management allowed Gaede to continue to perform for the same commissions and sent him a letter stating that it would make no changes in its sales representatives "for at least the next year". Three months later, in December 1997, the new managers sent Gaede a letter proposing new terms for a contact. Gaede continued to sell Helikon product until May 1997 when he received a letter effectively reducing the amount of his commissions. Gaede filed a suit in a Texas state court against Helikon, alleging breach of contract. Helikon argued in part that there was no contract because there was no consideration. Remember to base your posting on a carefully analysis of the Helikon case. Read the Helikon case. Please note the 2nd letter says the letter of December 13, 1997 (I believe this is a clerical error, and the date should be December 13, 1996, and the final letter then is in May 1997.;Answer the following questions;1. Who won the case (actual name of the party, not appellant, respondent, etc);2. Why did they win the case? state the legal principles


Paper#32667 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $22