DGAA bLAWg

Earlier this year, Domino’s introduced a new method for ordering a pizza that involved the use of Twitter and the pizza emoji. While being able to simply tweet and have a pizza delivered to your door may be easy, a question exists as to when, and if, a valid contract is created by this action. 

Tweeting for a Pizza 

An individual who wishes to take advantage of the pizza emoji ordering method must have an online Domino’s Pizza Profile with an Easy Order pizza saved in his or her account. In addition, he or she must add his or her Twitter account to his or her Pizza Profile. After this is accomplished, the individual can tweet the pizza emoji
to the Domino’s account (@dominos). An emoji is simply a small digital image, which, in the case of the pizza emoji, is a slice of pizza. Once Domino’s receives the tweet, a direct message will be sent to the person confirming the order. The individual must approve the order before the pizza is officially ordered. 

Is it a Contract? 

A valid, enforceable contract is created when four elements exist: 

1. Offer: a party must make a definite, clear promise to do something;

2. Consideration: something of value must be promised in exchange for the benefit; 

3. Acceptance: the offer must be accepted. In most cases, the acceptance must be of the exact terms that were offered. If new terms are introduced, it is considered a counter-offer, which the person who made the original offer can accept, reject, or propose another counter-offer; and 

4. Mutuality: this is often referred to as a “meeting of the minds.” It means that both parties understand and intend to be bound by the terms of the contract. 

The act of tweeting the pizza emoji to Domino’s probably does not constitute a valid offer. Rather, it is likely an expression of interest or request for a proposal, both of which are not considered an offer. In other words, the tweeted emoji represents an individual stating that he or she is interested in purchasing a pizza and asking Domino’s what they can offer to satisfy that interest. 

While tweeting the emoji may not constitute a valid offer, individuals can still order pizzas through this method. This is because of the direct message requesting confirmation of the order. At this point, an offer with consideration has been made. Domino’s has promised to make and deliver a pizza in exchange for the amount of money it states the pizza costs in the confirmation message. When the individual responds positively confirming the order, acceptance has been completed. At that moment, the individual has agreed to pay the stated price in exchange for the pizza. 

Understanding contracts is important because they are a significant part of all of our lives. If you would like more information about the creation or breach of contracts, please contact a knowledgeable Schaumburg, IL civil litigation attorney today. Our firm represents individuals throughout the northwest suburbs, in communities such as Crystal Lake, Schaumburg, Palatine, Des Plaines, Rolling Meadows, Buffalo Grove, Barrington, Arlington Heights, Inverness, and Deer Park. 

About the Author:

Source: 

https://www.dominos.com/en/pages/customer/#/customer/profile/

Lawsuits are based around some sort of legal claim, an event or controversy where someone was harmed. For contracts this harm is usually comes in the form of a breach, where one party fails to fulfill its obligations. However, people are not allowed to simply lie in wait indefinitely after a breach of contract and file a suit decades later. Instead, the law imposes a rule called a statute of limitations. This rule acts as a time limit on filing a case, though the time limit varies based on the particular circumstances of the case.

After learning about statutes of limitations, many people wonder why they exist.

Intuitively, it seems unfair that an injured party should have a countdown placed on their ability to seek compensation. In reality there are two reasons for it, fairness to the defendant and the accuracy of the trial. From the standpoint of fairness, the law believes that even if someone has done something wrong, they still have the right to deal with it in open court and then put it behind them, rather than having the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them for the rest of their life.

As for the accuracy of the trial, evidence often degrades over time. Crucial objects can be lost, and witnesses’ recollections of events can grow hazy. Consequently, courts want plaintiffs bringing cases swiftly in order to have the best information available.

How Long is the Statute of Limitations for Breach of Contract?

For the purposes of contract law the statute of limitations can be as long 10 years or as short as one depending on what type of contract it is. The longest time limit, 10 years, belongs to breaches of standard written contracts. However, if the contract breached was an oral one rather than a written one, then Illinois law brings the statute of limitations down from 10 years to five. Certain sales contracts can have even shorter limits, four years by default, but the terms of the contract can opt to limit it to as little as one year.

In addition to the question of how long the statute of limitations is, the other major concern is the question of when the clock starts to count down. The general rule is that the time limit starts running from the moment of the breach, not the moment that the breach causes the injury. However, there is an exception to this normal starting point if something called the Discovery Rule applies.

The Discovery Rule "tolls" the statute of limitations, meaning that it prevents the time from counting down, until the injured party either discovers the breach or should have reasonably discovered the breach. Importantly, the Discovery Rule does not function for all breach of contract claims in Illinois, so whether it applies will depend on the specific facts of a case. There are also other rules that can toll the statute under certain circumstances such as if the injured party is a minor or away on military service.

If you believe you have a claim against someone for breaching a contract, contact a Palatine civil litigation attorney before the statute of limitations on your claim expires. Our experienced lawyers help clients across northwest suburban Cook County, in towns like Barrington, Des Plaines, and Crystal Lake.

About the Author: Founding partner of Drost, Gilbert, Andrew & Apicella, LLC, Colin Gilbert, received his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of law in 2005. Colin argues cases across many practice areas including criminal defense, collections, civil litigation, real estate law, and corporate law. Colin is an active member of the Board of Governors of the Northwest Suburban Bar Association and the Illinois Creditors Bar Association. He is currently Vice President of the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce, and is a Commissioner for the Village of Arlington Heights. Colin has a 10.0 Attorney rating on Avvo, and was named one of the 2014 “Top 40 Under 40” Trial Lawyers in Illinois by the National Trial Lawyers Association.

While people often see the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears as nothing more than a children’s story, it can also act as a simple overview of the legal system. After all, Goldilocks commits a variety of different offenses, both civil and criminal, throughout the story. 

The difference between a civil case and a criminal case is that a civil case involves a dispute between two private parties, the Bears and Goldilocks, while the criminal case involves the state pursuing Goldilocks for her illegal actions. Of course, many of Goldilocks’ actions can give rise to both civil liability and criminal charges.

The Civil Case: Bear v. Goldilocks

The Bears have three claims for which they may be able to sue Goldilocks: trespassing on their land, conversion of the porridge, and conversion of the chair. The Bears can easily show that Goldilocks trespassed on their land, but they will likely not receive any money for doing so, since her act of trespassing did not appear to cause any actual damage on its own. 

As for the claims of conversion, the Bears must show three things: that they owned the porridge and chair, that Goldilocks took some act inconsistent with that ownership, and that their property was damaged by Goldilocks’ acts. Since Goldilocks ate the porridge, and then sat in and broke the chair, the Bears can show that she converted those items and recover their value from Goldilocks.

The Criminal Case: The People v. Goldilocks

The state could also bring criminal charges against Goldilocks for all three of those same actions. These charges would be criminal trespass to land, petty theft of the porridge, and criminal damage to property for breaking the chair. However, the state would not have as easy a case as the Bears did suing for those same actions.

Trespassing is a crime in Illinois punishable by up to a $500 fine and six months in jail, but in order to be guilty of trespassing, a person must enter the land after being warned not to, or they must stay on the land after being told to leave. Unless the Bears had posted a sign warning trespassers, it would only be a civil offense. On the other hand, if Goldilocks had entered the house with a plan to commit a crime, she would be guilty of burglary, a class 2 felony punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The petty theft of the porridge is an easier case. She clearly steals the porridge by eating it, and in Illinois the seriousness of the theft is determined by the value of the item. Since the porridge was probably worth less than $500, it would be petty theft, a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a $2500 fine and one year in prison.

The state could also press charges against her for criminal damage to property for her breaking the chair, but this would likely fail. In Illinois, a person must knowingly damage the property to be guilty of the criminal offense. Because Goldilocks did not know she would break the chair if she sat in it, that charge would probably fail.

If you have recently found yourself involved with criminal charges or civil litigation, contact an attorney today. A Rolling Meadows criminal defense or civil litigation attorney can put their knowledge and legal experience to work for you. Our team serves clients across the northwest suburbs, in areas such as Schaumburg, Palatine, Barrington, and Inverness.

About the Author: Founding partner of Drost, Gilbert, Andrew & Apicella, LLC, Colin Gilbert, received his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of law in 2005. Colin argues cases across many practice areas including criminal defense, collections, real estate law, and corporate law. He is involved in his local Illinois community as an active member of the DuPage County Bar Association, Northwest Suburban Bar Association, and the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce. In 2012, Colin was nominated for 2012 Business Leader of the Year by the Chamber.

By Colin H. Gilbert

http://www.dgaalaw.com/colin-gilbert.html
cgilbert@dgaalaw.com
(847) 934-6000 ext 12.

While bringing home a new pet can often be a fun time for a family, new pet owners may sometimes find their excitement dampened as they discover unfortunate diseases or other health conditions that the pet store never warned them about. Fortunately, a new law in Illinois is trying to prevent that and to give new pet owners a recourse if it does happen. Illinois' new “Puppy Lemon Law,” which applies to cats as well as dogs, went into effect at the beginning of 2014. The law comes with two major parts, notification provisions and liability provisions. The notification provisions lay out new disclosure rules for pet shop operators and the liability provisions cover what happens in the event that the operator sells a sick pet.

Notification Provisions

The first part of the new law is proactive. It places new requirements on a pet shop operator in the case of contagious, life-threatening illnesses such as parvovirus or distemper. In the event that such an illness breaks out among the pet shop operator's animals, the operator must inform the State Veterinarian within two days. The State Veterinarian will then decide if the outbreak is severe enough to merit a quarantine of the animals. If it is, then the operator has two more business days to alert anyone who purchased a cat or dog in the last two weeks.

Liability Provisions

The new law also provides pet owners with the opportunity to sue pet shop operators in certain cases of new pets taking ill. Pet owners may sue in two situations. First, an owner may sue the pet shop operator if a veterinarian declares a pet unfit for sale due to a disease or severe parasitic infestation within 21 days of purchase, or if the pet dies of such disease within that time period. Second, an owner may sue if a veterinarian states, within one year of purchase, that the pet suffers from a congenital or hereditary disease, which requires hospitalization or non-elective surgery, or has caused the death of the pet.

In the event that the pet owner can recover from the pet store, they can choose a variety remedies.

• They may exchange the pet for a full refund.
• They may exchange the pet for another of comparable value.
• They may keep the pet and receive payment for its veterinary bills.
• And, if the pet is deceased, they may receive a full refund plus veterinary costs up to twice the pet’s purchase price.

If your family recently purchased a new pet that is now suffering from serious health issues, contact a Barrington civil litigation attorney today. We serve many areas in the Northwest suburbs including Crystal Lake, Rolling Meadows, and Des Plaines.