FINAL ESSAY

Sam came home one day and found two letters from different people. One of the letters was from chain store Sam verbally agreed to deliver 1000 units, and the firm was demanding the delivery of the units immediately. The second was an eviction notice from his landlord Quinn and required Sam to evict the building in the next 30 days. To determine the validity of both eviction notice and verbal agreement the term contract is going to be defined. The term contract means a promise or formal binding that has specified law to prevent cases of the breach and offers the remedy of the law in a manner that recognizes duty (Kubasek et al., 2018). Four elements make the contract valid, and they include an agreement, a consideration, a contractual object, and a legal object.

Analyze the elements of this case to determine whether a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Support your response by identifying the elements of a valid contract?

The first element in a contract is an agreement which is deemed relevant is it has specific terms, has intent and communication. The second is consideration and consist of unilateral or bilateral promise (Kubasek et al., 2018). The third is the contractual object and comprises the ability to comprehend all the ramifications of a contract to make it legal and binding to both parties (Legal,n.d). The last is a legal object and specifies all the things agreed in the contract which are known as subject or object. They ought to be lawful and definite, and a court of law cannot enforce a contract to conduct an illegal act (Steinberger, 2007). Hence, all the above-described elements are used to determine if the contract is valid or not. The contract between Sam and the chain store is invalid. The chain store is considered as minor during the time Sam agreed to the contract. Minors only enter into a voidable contract and have the right to disaffirm. Also, the agreement is made by force or duress and does not have mutual promise and can be altered at any time.

Assume there is not a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Analyze the elements of a quasi-contract and promissory estoppel to determine whether the chain store would prevail on a claim of either. Why or why not? Include support for your analysis. Even if there is not a valid legal contract between Sam and the chain, there may still be a quasi-contract or elements of what is called promissory estoppel.

The term quasi-contract is one that is imposed by the court to prevent any incidences of enrichment. It is not an actual contract but can be enforced if Sam knew the chain store was expecting him to deliver the 1,000 units and sell them exclusively as verbally agreed upon several months prior. Or Sam could be held accountable through promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a contract which is made through a promise, even though Sam may not have believed he made a promise to the chain store manager. The court may force promissory estoppel and make Sam deliver as promised.

Identify the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant under a standard residential lease agreement. The rights and responsibilities of both the landlord and tenant depend upon the termination of their contract. Such a contract may be verbal or in writing under a standard residential lease agreement.

Both tenant and landlord rights and obligation are based on the contract agreed by both. They both have certain rights and responsibilities while coming up with the lease agreement. The landlord has certain rights and makes it clear to tenants where they are supposed to obey. In this respect, the landlord and tenant agreement they are various facts that support Sam violated the contract, and it was justified to evict the property. One of the facts is whether Sam signed a contract and the terms were expressed clearly in writing prohibiting any business being conducted on the premises he violated the agreement. Sam may not have breached the contract with the landlord since he told Quinn his plan to work on an invention and he was wished luck. Hence, Quinn acknowledges Sam is going to conduct business in his premises.

Based upon those rights and obligations, does Sam’s landlord have grounds to evict? Why or why not?

Quinn, the landlord, has the right to evict Sam since he has failed in his part to perform the obligation of the lease. The lease obligation was tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises. The machine Sam invented played the sound of a dog barking to scare intruder the machine is noisy and disruptive to other tenants. Hence, they fail to enjoy quiet agreement for other tenants who had a similar agreement as Sam.

Further, what defenses might Sam raise to an eviction action? Support your response?

As identified above Sam told Quinn who was the landlord he was working on an invention the machine where the landlord acknowledged the fact and wished him good luck. Since Quinn gave Sam the freedom to run business in his premises the contract can be considered as “in pari delicto” meaning all the parties that is the landlord and tenant are equally responsible for illegal agreement. The court should not salvage the contract in favor of either party. Hence, neither party can enforce agreement nor should attempt to recover (Kubasek et al., 2018). Also, there is an error by one party related to the material fact which is vital in the context of the contract. Due to such error courts are hesitant to interfere especially when one party understands the material fact of the other party.

References

Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Dhooge, L., Herron, D., & Barkacs, L. (2018). Business Law – Dynamic Business Law. McGraw hill Education. 4th Ed.