Running head: Contract Analysis
Contract Analysis: Marshall Vs Gordon
Gordon
Liberty University
Word count: 1150
Running head: Contract Analysis
Background
Having grown up on a farm as a small boy back in St. Catherine, Jamaica, I took the art
of farming with me to Huntsville Alabama. In Huntsville I started growing various cash crop
including grapes and yams. By living in this area, I recognized that the locals are very health
conscious and this community were very close and tightly knitted.
As Sunday school teacher of Royalhouse Chapel Center, I recently had the pleasure of
meeting one such local, a gentleman by the name of Marshal Petersen and his wife Mrs. Gloria
Petersen. The Petersen’s owns a health food store and was very much interested in my
Muscadine grapes product. I then gave him samples to take to his customers and to provide
feedback.
Mr. Petersen and I made an arrangement for delivery of the Muscadine product after his
customers was very pleased with the samples I gave him. We came to an informal arrangement
for quantity and delivery, during this time his payment was being made monthly, in which on
multiple occasion his payments came in late, but because of the relationship built from the
church we elect not to charge him penalties. In my absence, Mr. Petersen had my son a seventeen
year old signed a contract to guarantee delivery to him, but he informed my son that this contract
is “just formality” and he should not worry about it.
The discussion below will address the three questions relating to the case, including, what
avenues will be taken if I choose to stop doing business with Marshall and any other avenues
relating to his faith or continued support of his Christian walk.
The Contract’s fraud execution
Running head: Contract Analysis
In reviewing the case described, an attempt is made to verify the dispute between
Peterson and Gordon. After, much publicity by the Huffington Post, and increased demand for
the product nationwide the relationship between both parties escalated to take into account
contractual obligations signed by both seller and buyer. Mr. Peterson argued that he have a
contract with Gordon and he is requiring that the contract be honored. Furthermore, because
Gordon himself did not sign a contract, his argument points to the fact that his son a Minor was
the one that was deceived into signing a contract and as described by Kubaseck, Browne, Herron,
Dhooge, Barkacs, Williamson (2016, pp. 313 – 318); for this discussion consider;
(1) agreement,
(2) consideration,
(3) contractual capacity and
(4) legal object.
The issue of contractual capacity was further described in chapter 16 by Kubaseck et al.
(pp. 341 -345).
Furthermore, the execution of the contract was obtained under fraudulent means hence,
making it illegal and voidable (Ashcroft & Ashcroft, 2008). Fraudulent means, include a
deceptive or misrepresentation of the true condition of the contract.
A Minor signing capacity of a contract
Of the four elements capacity refers to a paradigm where it need to be true to have a
binding contract. According to Kubaseck “all but three states” in the USA, a minor is considered
anyone under eighteen, at the time of signing he was seventeen years old (p. 341). As a legal
Running head: Contract Analysis
principle, “contracts entered into by a minor is voidable until such time that minor reaches an age
of majority” (p. 341).
In one example an argument as discussed by Dugas (1988), talks about minors in the
workforce and their “protective capacity” argued that minors should have the capacity to contract
specifically in the State of Louisiana even if they are un-emancipated. However, based on the
law as it is held in Huntsville, Alabama, a contract between a minor and another party is voidable
(Kubaseck et al., p. 341), it is further argued that this provision is a to protect the minor from
immature decisions that they make.
In regards to the inverse of the signee, when reviewing this case, if the son of Gordon
was an employee, we should now consider what contractual arrangement would make it binding.
Dalley (2011) suggests that this is a matter of the agency law; this means that a senior executive
should be signatory to the contract as per policy.
Promissory Estoppel
In reviewing the case, Cohen v. Cowles Media, argues the options in favor of Petersen,
saying “the doctrine allowing recovery on the promise made without consideration when the
reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promise relied to his or her detriment” (1991).
However, Kubaseck et al. suggest consideration must be given to address the legality of this
option (p. 348), because he secured this contract in a fraudulent manner and if brought before the
courts, the argument of capacity relating to a minor will be an evidence against him.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) – Section 2-306
Although, the two parties had an agreement informally to supply a demand of grape
product. The contractual arrangement made and how it is made to further continue the
Running head: Contract Analysis
relationship was made in poor taste. Section 2-306 of the UCC, dictates that the seller is
obligated to supply all agreed goods and services to the buyer as is stipulated in the agreement, in
this case, the contract was obtained unreasonably.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the matter is, should I continue to do business with Petersen. From a
biblical perspective it is honorable to “forgive your brother seventy times seven and then some
more.” (Matthew 18: 21-22, KJV). Additionally, 2nd Corinthians 8:21 purports “for we are taking
pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of man”. It is important
to always consider man’s nature when doing business. To this end, it is not suggested that Mr.
Petersen be written off, but instead a measure of grace be shown to him. It is evident that He was
protecting his interest in garnering the best deal for himself for the product we offer.
In fact, it is also recommended that a proper negotiating be set in place and signed by
official parties of both businesses as we grow together in love.
Running head: Contract Analysis
References
American Psychological Association (APA). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC
Ashcroft J., D., & AshcroftJ.,E, (2008). Law for Business. 16 Th Ed. Thompson Higher
Education. MasonOH. ISBN: 9780324381573. Retrieved from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BHpGALgCs0YC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=fraud
+in+the+execution+of+a+contract&source=bl&ots=gzZFlXH6q5&sig=BptcFyydQdnYL
TotFxOSlp-a- Qc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=03d2T9PdAs2p0AHjhqjc
DQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fraud%20in%20th e%20execution%20of%2
0a%20contract&f=false
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 501 US 663 (1991), Retrieved from:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/501/663a
Dalley, P., (2011). A theory of Agency law. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Retrieved
from: https://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/lawreview/article/viewFile/164/164
Running head: Contract Analysis
Dugas, M.J., (1988). COMMENT: THE CONTRACTUAL CAPACITY OF MINORS: A SURVEY
OF THE PRIOR LAW AND THE NEW ARTICLES. Tulane Law Review. Retrieved from
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=
DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=62+Tul.+L.+Rev.+745&srctype=s
mi&srcid=3B15&key=10a8f7ddb00a2a66a4291a576adb00c5
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Barkacs, L., Herron, D., & Dhooge, L. (2016). Biblical worldview
edition of dynamic business law. N. J. Kippenhan (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill
Education.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
