Respond to this post.

The four elements required to have a valid contract according to Miller are as follows:

• Agreement- One of the parties made a promise to do or refrain from doing some specified action in the future. It is important to establish what is and is not, and itmust be firm, not ambiguous, or vague.
• Consideration- This shows something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or nonaction. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract.
• Acceptance- Acceptance by the offeree (the person accepting an offer) is the unconditional agreement to all the terms of the offer. There must be what is called a "meeting of the minds" between the parties of the contract. This means both parties to the contract understand what offer is being accepted. The acceptance must be absolute without any deviation, in other words, an acceptance in the "mirror image" of the offer. The acceptance must be communicated to the person making the offer. Silence does not equal acceptance.
• Legality- The basic rule is that courts will not enforce an illegal bargain. Contracts are only enforceable when they are made with the intention that they are legal, and that the parties intend to legally bind themselves to their agreement. An agreement between family members to go out to dinner with one member covering the check is legal but is not likely made with the intent to be a legally binding agreement. Just as a contract to buy illegal drugs from a drug dealer is made with all the parties knowing that what they are doing is against the law and therefore not a contract that is enforceable in court.

Microsoft and Samsung Android Contract Dispute due to nonpayment of royalties.

Microsoft had sued Samsung back, alleging that the Korea-based electronics manufacturer had breached a 2011 contract and had stopped paying $6.9 million in interest associated with an intellectual property deal. Samsung had agreed in the 2011 contract to pay Microsoft about $1 billion a year to use the Android mobile operating system in its products, but it later stopped paying.

Samsung had stated that Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia had affected the terms of the 2011 deal. Microsoft had integrated Nokia's hardware manufacturing into its operation in April 2014 after acquiring them in September 2013. Samsung pointed to its Business Collaboration Agreement with Microsoft as part of the 2011 deal, which prohibited the assignment of a contract in cases of "a merger with a party with a third party." In the case of Nokia, Microsoft had acquired a competitor to Samsung, thus voiding the 2011 contract deal's terms.

The issue before the courts is whether Samsung has breached a collaboration agreement by initially refusing to make royalty payments after the U.S. company announced its intention to acquire Nokia's handset business in September 2013.

The a lawsuit concerning Android intellectual property payments was settled in February 2015, however, the terms and settlement have been kept confidential and undisclosed