Module 1 IRAC Essays
Part 1
Issue: Did Steve’s statements constitute an offer to Tina to sell him her Steinway grand piano?
Rule: In this circumstance; with an objective lens, a reasonable person would consider this to a
contract created in jest. Offers made in jest that are upheld are dependent upon the listeners
willingness to believe which should be looked at objectively.
Analysis: Steve was not serious about his intent to sell his piano and merely used it as a joking
point because Tina knowingly loved his piano. Tina also knows the value of the piano is well
over $50 and a reasonable person would suggest that she knows he is joking considering the
asking price. From another viewpoint, one could argue that both parties have both mutual
assent and consideration because a bargain is agreed upon; $50 for a Steinway grand piano. The
aspect missing to make this an enforceable contract is definiteness. There is no further
indication between the parties on how the piano is to be delivered, when it is to be obtained,
etc. which leave to much cause for interpretation.
Conclusion: Steve’s statements to Tina about selling his Steinway grand piano for $50 so he
could buy food would be made in jest from an objective viewpoint. This means that the
contract in question was made in jest and is not enforceable by Tina. Steve may keep his piano.
Part 2
Issue: Were the terms in Steve’s offer, under guise that his statement is an offer, definitive
enough for a contract to be formed?
Rule: A promise or consideration must be sufficiently clear to provide a court with a basis for
determining potential breaches. There also must be a remedy for a potential breach in said
contract. Now although every detail does not need to be specified, the offer accepted by Tina
from Steve is so vague and potentially non-serious that a court would not be able to determine
definiteness.
Analysis: The biggest missing aspect to this contract is definiteness because although it could
have been made in jest, there was mutual assent and consideration ($50 in exchange for
piano/food). If Tina were to address a court about a breach of contract because Steve does not
wish to give her the piano, they would not be able to sufficiently determine what the breach
was. There is no written binding contract as well to back up what was said between parties.
Objectively, there is no definiteness as to when the piano is to be obtained, how it is to be
delivered, when the date of sale is, etc.
Conclusion: There is not sufficient information agreed upon in this promise between Steve and
Tina for a court to consider there to be definiteness in the contract for the Steinway grand
piano.
