The issue of the performance of a contract is often bankrupt due to the treatment of those contracts. Although bankruptcy law does not define the term “enforceable contract,” most courts follow a variation of the definition given by Professor Vern Countryman in a revision article of the 1973 Act.1 Countryman`s established definition provides that an enforceable contract is a contract in which “the obligation of the bankrupt debtor and the other party is so largely under-fulfilled: That one of the two treaties would constitute a major infringement and excuse the performance of the other. Although this definition is simple in theory, it is not always easy to apply in practice, especially when the parties dispute the nature of their obligations under a contract. All bankruptcy sales require a hearing and the rules also require that other qualified bidders have the opportunity, at the hearing for confirmation of the sale, to offer more for the assets than the stalking horse bidder. In cases where there is a qualified offer for more than the amount of the bullying horse offer, the court will refuse the harassment horse`s offer and use the angry offer as an opening offer at a public auction. The party that has the highest bid at the auction is designated as a successful buyer and benefits from all the protective and benefit measures originally designed to protect and exploit the horse from harassment. A few months after the completion of the sale, New Thane used one of the infomercials produced by SJPL, but did not pay royalties to SJPL, as provided for in the contract. SJPL sued New Thane in California District Court, which moved the case to Delaware. SJPL argued that the catch all clause in the sales contract, combined with New Thane`s conduct, led to the tacit acquisition and assignment of the contract to New Thane, making New Thane liable for all obligations under the contract. New Thane argued that the contract was not accepted and was transferred to it as part of the sale, since a contract cannot be accepted and assigned without a formal request under bankruptcy law. Some courts have found that a contract can be adopted by the doctrine of “implied acceptance”.
In order to find an implicit hypothesis, the courts will examine the conduct of the parties to “a number of acts over a given period that demonstrates continuity of purpose.” Id. at *12. . . .