Page 4 University Daily Kansan, November 20, 1980
Opinion
Caught in nowhere land
Ricky Ross' brief career on the KU basketball team ended in irony when he quit the team this week.
Ross was one of the most highly recruited high school basketball players in the country in 1979. Several schools anxiously awaited for Ross to decide where he was going to take his jump shot.
When his decision came, visions of Big Eight titles and NCAA tournaments danced in the minds of Jayhawk fans.
Yet after one season, Ross has abandoned ship—just as dramatically as he got on board. The reasons for his quitting were
cited as personal, although Ross hastily left Lawrence after it was reported that he and at least two other members of the team were involved in the misuse of a telephone credit card of Assistant Coach Lafayette Norwood.
Ross arrived on the KU campus as a hotshot All-American. Now he leaves as a reject—split out of a warped, often questionable athletic system.
KU's athletic department is no different from most others. Ross just happened to play the "game," perhaps somewhat unaware of the consequences.
It's too bad that he had to lose.
Contracts are complicated; legal advice can be big help
By STEVE RUDDICK
Guest Columnist
The law governing creation of a contract, the various types of contracts and the consequences that accompany a contract is quite complex and subject to variation. A little knowledge can be dangerous without further legal consultation or advice.
In most situations, there must be an agreement to exchange "something for something" to form a contract. That agreement may be an act, forbearance or return promise.
For example, when a student promises to pay a farmer 50 cents per head of lettuce and the farmer promises to sell the student as much lettuce as the farmer chooses to gather in a week, the farmer's promise cannot be enforced because the farmer argue that the student is legally obligated. The farmer has promised nothing because he may not choose to gather lettuce during the week.
Most contracts are formed through an "offer" and an "acceptance" of the offer. An offer must be certain enough in its terms that it indicates a willingness to create a contract rather than being merely an invitation to bargain, a statement of future intentions or preliminary negotiations. Generally, an offer must include all essential terms of a contract, such as quantity, price, description of subject matter, and place of delivery.
An offer including such definite terms may be accepted only by an unconditional and unequivocal assent. If a purported acceptance includes new or varied terms, it is treated as a counteroffer rather than the final element necessary to form a contract. However, such a stringent rule does not apply under the Kansas Commercial Code when a sale of goods is involved.
The distinction between formation of a "nongoods" vs. "goods" contract is demonstrated by the following common transactions: (1) Contract for Services—When you take your car in for brake adjustment, tire rotation or an alignment, you solicit an offer. The mechanic offers to do the work for a stated price. A response that you'll agree to the work for five dollars less than the stated price is a counteroffer, not an acceptance. Without the机械's assent to do the work for the lesser price, no contract is formed; (2) Contract for Sale of Goods — When you walk about with your lot and ask about a salesperson about a particular car's price, an offer is invited. Assume the salesperson offers to sell you the car for $500.0. A response indicating you'll buy the car but only for $750.0 operates to make acceptance expressly conditional upon assent to the new price.
No contract has occurred at this stage of negotiations. Should the salesperson reject this new term but agree to split the difference in price, a second offer has occurred. Your response stating "OR, I would like to pick it up tomorrow" formates a contract for sale of the car at a price less than $500. It is probable that delivery of the car on the following day did not become part of the sales contract.
Even though a contract is theoretically formed, it must be enforceable or it has no benefit. In many cases, oral contracts are enforceable against the other party. The contents required in a writing vary according to the type of contract. Subjects following described categories are the subject of the law when the party must be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought and it must state the parties, subject matter and terms of all promises made by each party:
1. A promise made to a third person to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another. If you should ever agree to be a surety for a friend's loan repayment or agree to post a bail bond for someone, you fall within this category and should require documentation.
2. An agreement that cannot possibly be performed within one year from the date of completion. The result in completed performance within a year no writing is required. Thus, a contract to sun-
The University Daily KANSAN
(USFS 583-649) Published at the University of Rensselaer August through May and Monday and thursday during Fall. Mail letter to USFS, Second-class postal mail for Lawrence, Kansai 60051. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $27 a year outside the county. Students享受 six months or $24 a year paid through the student activity fee. A consortium paid through the student activity fee.
and Kansas. Solid changes of address to the University
Dalley Kemper in East, The University of Kansas,
Kansas. LAWS
Editor
Business Manager
Carol Mackenzie and News Adviser
General Manager and News Advisor
Rick Manner
Michael Cox
port an uncle as long as he lives does not require a writing since the uncle could die within a year
3. Contracts for the sale of land or various interests in land. In addition to the sale of full ownership in real estate, this category covers sales of lesser interests in land including easements, mortgages, liens and leases for a term more than one year.
Other contracts requiring a written memorandum or document are sales of "personal property" above specified dollar amounts. "Personal Property" includes goods and the rights owed from an existing contract. Under Kansas law, the sale of contract rights for a value of $5,000 or more be in writing to be received, a document must state the price and the subject of the sale be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.
A contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more must be signed and must state the quantity of goods sold.
Oral contracts not within the above categories are binding and enforceable. However, disputes occur about the exact terms of a verbal agreement. Because such disputes often lead to contradictory stories in court, documentation of an agreement's terms is never a bad idea.
When an agreement is finally reduced to writing, all significant promises or understandings should be mentioned. Too often, a standardized form is used that may not cover an oral agreement on which one party relies. Students often secure a landlord's oral promise on some matter yet later sign a "form lease" that either omits or contradicts the previous oral promise from a written contract states that it is intended for a woman. The previous or contemporaneous agreements may not be used to contradict or add terms to the contract.
Although certain exceptions accompany the general contract rule, many leases in Lawrence contain clauses that state that the writing is a complete description of all agreements and may serve to prevent students from enforcing previous oral promises by a landlord. Students should insist that such oral agreements be written into form leases.
A written contract often can be modified or rescinded by a subsequent oral agreement between the same parties. Such may be one way to ensure that a prior oral agreement finally becomes part of the contract. One exception to this rule involves the subsequent modification of a contract for the sale of goods. If the original written contract for the sale of goods prohibits subsequent oral modification, a signed writing must be used or the modification will be ineffective.
Assuming a valid contract has been formed and is enforceable, a student then may face the question of whether the contract has been "breached" and, if so, what remedies are available. Generally speaking, a contract is breached in the party, without good justification, fail to perform all or part of a duty that has become due, or all or part of what has been promised.
If a breach is partial, the injured party may still have to perform his side of the bargain and have a claim only for compensatory damages. Too often, people assume that they are "off the hook" due to any type of breach by the other party. This may not be the case.
Contract remedies will be allowed in an attempt to realize the reasonable expectations that have been induced by a contract. The possible remedies for a breach of contract are "specific performance", compensatory damages, and "restitution".Specific performance, that is, being compelled to perform that which was originally agreed, is an exceptional remedy and available only where damages would be inadequate compensation. Damages are based on the amount of damage can be estimated in dollar amounts and that were reasonably foreseeable upon the occurrence of a breach. Restitution usually involves payment for the value of performances the non-breaching party has completed less the value of benefits already received.
Regardless of which remedy may be available, the party injured by a breach must avoid doing anything which forcefully will increase injury. A claimant could have avoided will not be allowed.
The foregoing discussion is intended to give K.U. students an overview on how contract law and its theories enter into everyday life. However, the point to be remembered above all is that a knowledge of general theories is not adequate for determining if an enforceable contract and what consequences may follow due to it. The complexion of contract formation and breach of contract actions will avoid problems created by the complexities of contract law.
Steve Ruddick is an attorney for KU Legal Services.
Letters to the Editor
Hashinger offers a lot to students
To the editor:
Susan Schoenmaker's editorial concerning Hashinger Hall's speciality, or lack thereof, raises several disturbing points on which we would like to comment.
To begin with, quality is not a tangible concept that can be discussed in terms of dollars, resident population, or single room quotas. In a residence hall, quality is a concept that changes as the residents change. It is expressed through resident involvement and interest. Obviously Schoenmaker has been absent from many hall activities and hall government meetings, for if she had been in attendance she would have seen the enthusiasm and interest that the residents have for the hall.
This fact leads us to a second point to which we would like to respond. Not only do we have outstanding resident participation, but this participation, for the most part, comes from freshmen and sophomores. Departing juniors and seniors have not stripped Hashinger of its traditions. In Hashinger, tradition is the freedom of expression that every resident enjoys. This has been, still is, and will continue to be the strength of Hashinger.
Frankly, Schoenmaker's statement that Hashinger now offers fewer choices confuses us. As third-year residents we have not noticed missing choices.
As departing seniors, we certainly feel that we have gotten our money's worth and we are confident that Hashinger will never suffer from a lack of quality. As we leave the hall we take with us many memories but we will not take with us the traditions of Hashinger!
Hashingier continues to offer a broad range of social and intellectual programs, the residents continue to determine the direction of the hall, and Hashingier continues to maintain and add special facilities in response to resident needs.
Jane Perkins
Florissant,Mo.,senior
Mary Studier
Prairie Village senior
Coalition wrong
Where do you live? According to whether you are in a fraternity or sorority, or a member of a scholarship hall, you received an entirely different impression of the presidential and vice presidential candidates running on the Impact Coalition.
To the editor:
A letter sent to the Greek houses in support of the Impact candidates, Bert Coleman and Bren Abbott, Greeks themselves, emphasizes that "it is essential that we support candidates who are dedicated to our interests." In a letter sent to the scholarship halls, however, the emphasis is on the candidates' interests. The letter states that "it is essential that we support responsible, qualified candidates who are capable of handling the two highest student offices at KU," never mentioning their Greek affiliations.
The elections will be completed today and everyone needs to be there, vote and let them vote.
These statements, not being the only discrepancies found in the letters, cause me to question the sincerity of their interests in either group. Why the entirely different approaches: And don't the residence halls compose almost half of the University? As of Monday, none of the residence halls had received their version.
If these two men and their Senate running mates have enough confidence in their own qualifications and a strong platform, why the inconsistencies? Do we, as the student body, wish to elect leaders who explicitly cater to certain groups in order to promote them? If it means hiding some facts and highlighting others, what are they who are going to represent us, not only in our University environment, but nationally, to use a firm, honest approach?
It's up to us, the students, to elect someone who will represent us honestly and unbiasedly. Before you vote, check into all the candidates who make an informed decision. We need it!
Sue Heley
Student Senator
Prairie Village junior
Forum important
To the editor:
Your support for the idea of rescheduling the debate between South African exile Dennis Brutus and South African diplomat Gert Grabler was much appreciated, if unnecessary. We fully intend to present the debate, and having spoken with Prof. Brutus and some of those of trying again—and finding him willing—he was a successful. (Mr. Grabler expressed his willingness to attend at a later date as he canceled 24 hours in advance).
Due to the busy schedules of the two men involved, though, it will probably be February or early March before a second attempt can be made. Still, because there is interest in solving itself by then, I encourage students to member of the community to keep the subject in mind and plan on attending in the spring. Each individual is a fluent advocate of his side of the issue and the two no will doubt combine to make an interesting and impactful debate. (No panel will be used. They'll question and address each other face to face).
As for the suggestion that the Student Senate has a continuing obligation to present such forums- I fully agree. And, given suggestions by the student body and a willing effort on the part of the soon-to-be-elected Student Senate, I believe they will.
Matt Davis
Matt Davis Student body vice president
Columns neo-Nazi
The ballots have been cast, the votes have been counted, and Bill Menezes has been elected to the prestigious post of campus neo-Nazi editorial. At least this seems, judging by the encouraging "Letters to the Editor" responses in the Kansan recently, to the landslide consensus of the campus letter writers.
To the editor:
Menezes' editorial purpose puzzles me, as the purposes of most syndicated editorialists puzzle me; his reasoning is fuzzy, falling away at librarians and moderates, but never clearly defining his conservative cure-all. If Moëtz had a more direct approach, Kilpatrick, he needs to add a few more cleverly inconsiderate words of disdain, such as "fooby" and "humbug," to his already clouded rhetorical style. Menezes, obviously an ardent follower of William F. Buckley (who feeds like a freized piranha on objections to his multi-syllabic words), wrenches his editorials to fit his thoughtful analogies, witty phrases and amazing recall of Dear Abby.
Buckley, Kilpatrick, and most other editorialists, including Menezes, seem to have relied so heavily on the left hemispheres of their brains that they are no longer able to integrate—much less create—new ideas. Due to neglect, they and their hemispheres shrivel up in neoves and shut down completely—neoves permanently welded together.
Menezes exacts Kilpatrick's monovisionary Nazi thinking quite well, showing a quantum ignorance of reason and logic by telling us in his Nov. 10 editorial that "it's useless to cry about Reagan." By writing this book we are not syndicated editorial George F. Will, ignores an overwhelming purpose for crying about Reagan and the sweeping reactionary
victories in the U.S. government—the voting minority has sanctioned an ideological Magna Carta written by super-ignorant Jerry Failwell and his "Moral Majority" counterparts. I fail to believe that the United States would hold these police-state ideals, rooted in an ideal of fear and ignorance and mandating increased governmental control of civil liberties.
There is always a purpose for crying about an unfortunate political situation. The crying, however, must not be the end of this energy; it is time for thoughtful people, concerned with the ideological meanings of the elections, to organize their anti-political movement to argue against the social majority" and other right-wing religious groups now flexing their political muscle.
Doug Bonney Lawrence senior
Petty politics
To the editor.
Now that you know who I am, let me tell you about the latest partners in political plunder on this campus . . . "Mikl, David, Jeff, Robin and Ron."
By way of introduction, I'm a former Kansan and KJHK reporter who has covered the last three student body elections. I continue to be amazed at the inability of any campus politics to diagnose the Student singular disgust feature: its petty politics.
One was appointed by Margaret Berlin to direct ASK for KU. (Never mind that she'd just transferred here from another school and had been a student here for more days.) Another was Berlin's research assistant, who just happened to be her 'running mate' roommate—and who is now the roommate of candidate Larry Metzger's brother.
A third is (disclaimer in their letter), a candidate for Senate and just happens to occasionally date one of the other signes. Still another currently chairs the culture committee. The fifth is a first-year law student from Fort Hays State with no previous involvement in Kansas politics. Nothing like keeping it in the family . . . I wonder if they'll send joint Christmas cards this year.
What's their stake?
these people purport to tell "facts" of the extent that bank know someone should set the record straight.
Abbott and Coleman are trying to bounce those bitch budget hearings by broadening the base of the preliminary budget review and then forcing senators to do some homework BEFORE the hearings, thereby shortening the time that senators some other headache handaches.
Abbott advocates bringing back CSHE because ASK represents all of the Regents' institutions, and therefore isn't too concerned with the 'Hawks' games to quiff some beatz at the 'Hawks' games.
I like Larry Metzger. I don't think he would authorize that letter. I do think that if the guy wants to go back to federal and state regulation like he says, he will, he's the one that should be tied down.
So back to the letter. Why was it written? My guess comes from several frustrating years of Senate coverage since Mike Harper finished his textbook lesson in student government. These people are so damned interested in seeing their cronies run the show that they'll try to screw anybody who threatens that obsession. In so doing, their deathhack on student representation strangles student input and interest.
Enough of "All in the Family." Let's put Margaret Berlin politics. Read the "Dear Marlene" and have a good laugh, and then restore some creature to the idea of student impact at this university.
Keith Sevedge Kansas City, Kan. law student