Business law principles and practice

Business Law

Which type of contract, bilateral or unilateral, is more common in business?

In business, bilateral contracts are more common. A unilateral contract only gives something to one party, while the other party essentially gets nothing. A bilateral contract mean that both parties are getting something in the transaction. One party promises to give something in return for something that the other party is giving. These are contracts that make the most sense because most people want something in return.

However, there are times when a unilateral contract works as well because a person who has paid money already to a company, for example, may get a contract saying that the company will deliver goods, provide a service, etc. If the contract is signed before the money is given and includes the money exchange it would be bilateral. If it was signed after the money exchange and includes only the transfer of goods or services, it would be unilateral.

Some people prefer one type of contract to the other, but that often depends on the person. Someone who does not want what they might have paid or given spelled out would likely prefer a unilateral contract where they do not have to worry about their involvement being in print. People who are not concerned about this or who are very careful about ensuring that everything that they are involved with is spelled out carefully will certainly prefer a bilateral contract. There are advantages to both types of contract, as well. There may be tax advantages for the offeror if it looks as though he or she is doing something for no compensation. There may also be tax advantages to the offeree if he or she has clearly spent money on something. These are things that the parties to the contract would have to check into in order to know for sure.

However, because bilateral and unilateral contracts are so different in how they represent the parties to a transaction, it is very important in business to know when each one of them should be used so that both parties' interests are protected.

Do you believe that a period this long is necessary to encourage the production of creative work? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a longer copyright validity period?

I do not believe that the longer term is necessary to encourage the production of creative work, but I believe that it does help. When a person writes or otherwise creates something, he or she wants to own that. There is often a lot of work and time and passion that goes into the creation of something that has been written down and will be read by others - it is very important to the writer, and he or she usually cares deeply about the writing and where it will go.

If the writer did not want people to read it, he or she would not have written it down and made the effort to find a publisher for it. Because that time was taken and that effort was made, that person certainly does not want to see someone else infringe on the copyright and create a work that is almost identical to pass off as his or her own. By extending the copyright term it virtually ensures that the person's children and possibly grandchildren will also not have to see that take place.

Other than peace of mind for future generations of relatives, however, there is really little to gain by an extension of the copyright period. The original creator of the work is gone, so he or she will not be complaining, and the original copyright act went fifty years beyond that person's death, so an extra twenty years does not gain much. What it does do is stop people with ideas that are creative and unique to some degree but would also play on or work with an older idea from getting those ideas to market and into the hands of readers and consumers.

This actually hurts the public as a whole, and people do not even realize it. It can also hurt creative people like writers and inventors of great ideas because they cannot do anything with those thoughts for an extra twenty years. Depending on their ages, they might not even be around to do something with those thoughts when that twenty years is up.

Should states be able to have homestead exemptions much larger than the federal exemptions and those of most other states?

In the debtor haven states there are huge homestead exemptions, sometimes as much as $25,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on the cost of the home. These are much bigger than what federal bankruptcy laws allow, which means that these people are sometimes able to file bankruptcy while keeping huge, expensive homes, or they hide their assets by putting all their money into their home to avoid paying anything.

States should be able to do what they want to do within reason, but they also have to listen to the government, and this is one area where the feds should put their foot down and stop states from letting people get away with so much. Federal law should always come before state laws, and if the federal bankruptcy laws list a certain amount for a homestead exemption then that is all that a person should be able to have for bankruptcy purposes. If the states want to give bigger exemptions for taxes and things, that is certainly their business, because the taxes belong to the states.