BUS: Case Study One

!1Case Study Two

Case Study Two

Business Law One

Megan George

!2Case Study Two

In this case study, we discuss the contract and landlord-tenant laws regarding the

case concerning Sam. In the case study, Sam had told his Landlord Quinn that he was

working on an invention that acted as security to scare away any intruders. Quinn his

landlord acknowledged Sam’s efforts and wished him luck. The machine Sam

invented produced dog barking sounds and this attracted the interest of Chain store

that sold safety products, who wanted 1500 units from him immediately. There was

no contract established or signed by Sam and the Chain store. One day when Sam

came home, he found two letters at his house. One was an eviction letter from his

landlord and the other was a letter from the Chain store concerning the delivery of the

1500 units of his machine. The eviction letter stated that other tenants had complained

about the dog-barking device and that he had to vacate and also he wasn’t allowed to

operate a business at his apartment

The four elements that make a contract valid in the case between the chain store

and Sam are:(1.) offer (2) acceptance (3) legal object (4) Consideration (Kubasek,

2016). In regards to Sam and the Chain store, there seems to be an existence of an

offer as Sam had verbally implied to the store manager that he would ship 1000 units

of his barking device. Despite this, Sam did not specifically state when he would have

them delivered to a Chain store. The second element is acceptance and in this case, it

is not clear that the store manager accepted Sam’s offer to have the devices delivered.

The lack of acceptance from both parties shows that this element is not present in this

case. The third element is the legal object whereby there is an intention to enter into a

legally binding contract. In the case of Sam and the Chain store, there is no evidence

that there was a legally binding agreement. Lastly, the last element that makes a

contract valid is a consideration ( Kubasek, 2016). In this case, Sam showed

!3Case Study Two

consideration when he promised to deliver the 1000 units but on the other hand, the

store manager did not hence we can conclude that there is no valid contract in the case

for Sam and Chain store.

Assuming that the contract between Sam and chain store is not valid a quasi-

contract or promissory estoppel can be used to accept or refuse both of the parties'

claims. According to Kubasek, a quasi-contract is an agreement legally binding two

parties who have not signed an actual contract (Kubasek, 2016). It imposes fairness

and equity thus there is an imposed contractual obligation. One element of a quasi-

contract is “unjust enrichment” which means that one of the parties is prevented from

being enriched at the expense of the other party. In this case, failure to deliver the

devices by Sam will enrich him at the expense of the store not receiving them. The

chain store would have to show how Sam would be unjustly enriched from not

delivering and that Sam was conferred a benefit. This implies that their claim would

fail if they used the quasi-contract.

The other way that the chain store might prevail in their claim to get the 1000

units delivered to them by Sam is through promissory estoppel. This is an enforceable

promise that relies on one of the party’s detriment ((Kubasek, 2016). Based on the

case Sam had told the store manager that he would deliver 1,000 units and this verbal

statement is considered a verbal promise that the store relied on its detriment. The

store can use the promissory estoppel concept to win their claim by stating that Sam

verbally stated that he would deliver 1000 units of the dog barking machine and the

store was relying on him to deliver and if he does not deliver it would be unfair to

them.

!4Case Study Two

Landlords and tenants both have rights and obligations under the terms of the

residential lease agreement. The landlord should provide the tenants with a promise to

maintain the premises, imply a covenant of quiet enjoyment, promise to fully possess

the agreed premises, tenantable property assurance. The covenant of enjoyment is the

right and obligation for both the landlord and tenant to enjoy the rental property and

also take care of it (Kubasek, 2016). In this case, we do not know about Sam’s and

Quinn’s lease agreement specifics or whether they entered into one. The Landlord is

supposed to ensure all his tenants enjoy their property without disturbance and in the

eviction letter, Sam had breached the covenant as other tenants complained of noise

coming from Sam’s barking device. On the other hand, Sam has a right to fully use

the property and possess it so he has a right to do what he feels like about his

apartment

Residential lease agreements mostly prohibit any commercial operations taking

place on the premises unless it is specified otherwise (Kubasek, 2016). If this

prohibition is violated it can be a good reason for a landlord to evict a tenant and

Quinn can use this as a ground for eviction. On the other hand, Sam can state how the

landlord had acknowledged him conducting business in his apartment when first

notified him about his invention and secondly acknowledged it when he wished Sam

good luck.

Quinn can use the neighbor's complaint to evict Sam since he would have

breached the “covenant of quiet enjoyment” but this would depend on the level of

noise the machine-made and whether it disturbed the neighbors.

!5Case Study Two

Sam can defend himself from being subjected to eviction by proving that the

noise made form the machine did not disturb his neighbor nor breach their right to

enjoy the quietness. He can also sue for damages as a result of the eviction. In regards

to, “conducting a business” Quinn was aware of Sam’s invention thus he voluntarily

waived his position to question Sam’s business operation unless the landlord proves

he did not. Therefore Sam can sue Quinn for evicting him without a reason which is a

contract breach.

Reference

Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Giampetro-Meyer., A., Barkacs, L., & Dhooge,

L.(2016). Dynamic business law ( 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.