BUS 206 Final Project

Moore 2

BUS 206 Milestone Two

Jennifer Moore

Southern New Hampshire University

Milestone Two

A contract is made up of four elements. The agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object is what makes up a contract. The offeror, the agreement that includes an offer by Sam, means to enter a contract and an acceptance of terms of the offer by the other party, chain store manager, called the offeree (Kubasek, 2012). Sam verbally told the store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units of a barking dog noise maker. This element does count towards a contract because Sam agreed to ship the 1,000 units. Following up next is the consideration, which would exist if the chain store manager agreed on what to give Sam in exchange for the 1,000 units. There would be no valid contract because part of the exchange was not mentioned. A contractual capacity is the legal ability to enter into a binding agreement and that the parties can understand that a contract is being formed. The speculation that Sam is of age, so therefore a contractual capacity element is valid. In the end, is the element of a legal object. Since the chain store manager has implied that they are wanting to sell Sam’s product entirely suggested an agreement. If all the elements were present to imply a contract, there still can be reasons as to why a contract might not be sustainable. If Sam was under the age of 18, could imply a voidable contract. Minors are not considered to have legal capacity as they are unable to comprehend the outcome of a contract. Also, a contract would not be valid is that it lacks proper form, which means it lacks a writing (Kubasek, 2012).

A quasi-contract could be established, even though there may not be a valid legal contract with Sam and the chain store manager. Quasi-contract is an obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. A quasi-contract is also known as an implied-in-law contract, but they are not true contracts. To prevent one party from being wrongly embellished at the expense of another, the courts impose contractual obligations on one of the parties as if that party had entered into a contract (Kubasek, 2012). The benefits that each party receives, is what needs to be determined. The store manager will be able to profit from the sale of the 1,000 units of Sam’s product. Unfortunately, there is no mention of what Same would receive in return. There is a possibility that Sam received payment for the products in advance and just had not delivered the products yet. To complete the exchange, the courts could obligate Sam to send the 1,000 units to the store manager.

The legal opinion that a promise is contractual by law when the promisor (the person making the promise) makes a promise to the promisee (the person being promised) who counts on it to his or her liability is a promissory estoppel. There are three conditions the chain store manager may succeed under the promissory estoppel. Initially, one party makes a promise knowing the other will rely on it (Kubasek, 2012). Sam promised 1,000 units to the manager and the manager accepted the business when he stated that he wanted to sell the product entirely in his store. Next, the other party relies on the promise. The store manager sends a letter to Sam requesting his products immediately that were promised to him. The store manager relied on the promise and the only way to avoid an injustice is to enforce the promise; this last condition must be met (Kubasek, 2012).

Both the landlord and tenant have rights and obligations in terms of their contract. The landlord’s rights and obligations are to put the tenant in possession of the apartment, provide a covenant of quiet enjoyment of the apartment, and be reimbursed for the tenant’s waste (Kubasek, 2012). Sam’s eviction notice was because he is violation the covenant of quiet enjoyment for the other tenants with his dog barking invention, and because he has an operating business from his apartment. Sam told the landlord that he was working on an invention, so therefore Sam can argue that he has not violated the contract. The landlord himself wished Sam luck with his project. It does not seem like a restriction to me it sounds like the landlord giving him encouragement. The landlord should have spoken up at the time to Sam was not violating by running a business from his apartment. Now, for Sam’s noise that is disturbing the other tenants, violating the covenant of quiet enjoyment, is grounds for eviction.

Sam’s argument against the eviction would be he verbally expressed to the landlord his intent to build an invention and it may not be stated in their contract whether the agreement prohibits Sam from working on his invention in the apartment. Once Sam verbally expressed his intentions, the landlord should have mentioned wrongdoing and addressed the concern at that time. Sam may use his apartment the way he chooses, if he is not disrupting any other tenants. Sam did create disruptions with his invention; however, the landlord did wish him luck. The communication of a verbal agreement permitted and encouraged Sam’s actions. Unless it was stipulated in the lease it can not be considered a violation. Therefore, there is not enough evidence stated to determine how much of Sam’s actions caused disruption, and what extent.

References

Kubasek, N.K. (2012). Dynamic business law. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.