Business law Law defines a set of rules that regulate interaction between members of the society. It outlines rights and obligation of parties in relations. This paper seeks to explore cases under law of contract.Douglas vs. special productsFacts Douglas entered into a contractual agreement with Page Wilson under ‘non-compete’ provisions. Acquisition of Page Wilson resulted to ownership by Special products. Special Products, after Douglas’ resignation, filed a suit against him for soliciting the organization’s clients but he argued that there was no ‘non-compete’ contract.IssueThe issue to be determined is whether a ‘non-compete’ contract existed between Douglas and Special Products. RuleAssignment of contractual rights transfers all rights of the assignor under privity of contracts (Clarkson et al., p. 246, 304- 305). Application The ‘non-compete’ contractual rights were transferred to Special Products hence exception of ‘privity’ of contracts. Conclusion Douglas is therefore not correct because Special products had enforceable rights. Kethan vs. MHAFacts MHA acquired MedEcon, Kethan’s employer under a ‘non-compete’ agreement, including Kethan’s contract. Kethan then resigned and violated the ‘non-compete’ agreement prompting a suit. IssueThe determinable issue is whether the ‘non-compete’ agreement was assignable. RuleAn assignment transfers all of the rights of the assignor as was held in the case of Martha Graham vs. Martha Graham center of contemporary dance (Clarkson et al., p. 304- 307). Application MHA acquired all of MedEcon’s rights including rights over the ‘non-compete’ contract. Conclusion The ‘non-compete’ contract was assignable. Bruder vs. TexasFacts Jones assigned a claim over money, which he paid as a bribe, to Bruder. Bruder has moved to sue the state for the money that it received as evidence for the crime. IssueThe issue to be determined is whether the assigned claim was enforceable. RuleA contract is only enforceable if its subject matter is legal (Clarkson et al., p. 260). Application Payment of a bribe is illegal and cannot establish an enforceable contract. Conclusion Bruder will therefore not be successful. Carlil vs. CarbolicFacts Carbolic company announced that it would pay a sum of money to any individual who contacted flu after consuming its drug. Carlil used the drug but contacted the flu and then sued for the compensation. IssueThe issue for determination was whether there existed an enforceable contract. RuleWith other essential elements satisfied, offer and acceptance constitute a contract (Clarkson et al., p. 237). Application Carbolic made an offer that was accepted by Carlil. Conclusion A contract was recognized between carbolic and Carlil (Macken, p. 1) Implied warranty of merchantability. usage of tradeUnless expressly avoided or varied, there is an implied warranty that goods sold by a merchant are of merchantable quality. This means that the goods must be generally acceptable according to their description, must be of reasonable quality, must be ordinarily applicable, and must correspond to their labels. The warranty may generate other warranties (Law, p. 1). Implied warranty of fitness for particular purposeUnless expressly excluded, there is an implied warranty, in cases where the seller is informed of the purpose of the goods and the buyer relies on the seller’s expertise, that the commodities matches their intended purpose (Law, p. 1). Works citedClarkson, Kenneth, et al. Business Law: Text and Cases – Legal, Ethical, Global, and Corporate Environment. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Law. Uniform commercial code. Cornell University Law School. N.d. Web. 07 June 2012. Macken, Claire. Sample case summary of Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball CO  2 QB 484. Deakin University. N.d. Web. 07 June 2012.