BUS 206 Milestone Two: Case Study Two
Ashley Allen
Southern New Hampshire University
There are four aspects that must be proven in order to show that Sam Stevens and the
chain shop have a legal contract, given the circumstances involving Sam Stevens, his landlord
Quinn, and possible business partner of the chain store. The agreement, the consideration,
contractual capability, and a legal object are the four components of a legitimate contract
(Kubasek, 2012). The verbal agreement between Sam and the chain store manager would be
considered to be the first part of the contract, the agreement. Sam made a verbal agreement to
provide 1,000 of his brand-new barking dog noise makers to the retail outlet owner, which is
regarded as a binding agreement. The verbal agreement between Sam and the store manager was
taken into account for determining the existence of the second component, the consideration.
Sam must deliver 1,000 units of his goods in exchange for the national chain store that sells
safety equipment agreeing to sell just his product. Due to a lack of evidence, the third
component, contractual capacity—the ability to bind oneself to a binding agreement or
contract—cannot be determined. Sam's legal age, whether or not he was drunk when the
agreement was made, and whether or not he was mentally stable at the time of the agreement
were not mentioned in the case analysis. As stated in the literature review, Sam's contractual
ability would be regarded as valid for the contract if he is of consenting age, not intoxicated, and
not experiencing any mental conditions at the time of the agreement. Due to the absence of a
real, tangible written contract, the fourth component—a contractual element considered invalid.
Even if all the necessary conditions for a contract were present between these parties, there may
still be some grounds for a contract's invalidity. For instance, if Sam were a minor at the time of
the contract with the chain shop, the commitment would be void since minors are not allowed to
enter into contracts because they lack the maturity to abide by the obligations set forth in them.
Invalidity of a contract may also result from the absence of the fourth element—a legal
object—during the case study or from Sam's drunkenness if he was not considered generally
mentally incompetent to enter into any contracts or deals.
Sam may have a quasi-contract with the chain shop even if there isn't a legal contract
between them. A quasi-contract, also known as an implied-in-law contract, serves as a safeguard
against one party unfairly enriching themselves at the expense of another (Kubasek, 2012). The
courts impose duties on one of the parties as though they had entered into a legally binding
agreement. If the chain shop gave Sam a boost toward the 1,000 items that were meant to be
sent, a quasi-contract may exist in this situation. In order to complete the exchange of the
quasi-contract, the court then has the authority to order Sam to deliver the 1,000 items to the
chain shop as agreed. According to legal definitions, a right to claim prevents one party from
breaking a commitment that the other party has a good cause to rely on. If Sam breaks his word,
this rule may apply to this situation in favor of the franchise business. Sam assured the manager
of the chain shop that he would send out 1,000 copies of his dog-barking noise maker. This
means that the chain shop has to sell 1,000 items in order to break even. Sam's dependence on
the chain store's 1,000 pieces of merchandise is evident by the chain store's letter to Sam
requesting that Sam produce the stipulated 1,000 units right away.
The length of their agreement affects both the landlord's and the tenant's rights and
obligations. Under a typical home lease arrangement, such a contract may be oral or written. A
landlord's obligations include giving Sam, the tenant, a space in the apartment that is peaceful,
livable, secure, and clean. Sam's landlord, Quinn, served him with an eviction notice stating that
he must vacate the flat within 30 days owing to his barking gadget, which has been upsetting the
other residents, as well as running or conducting a business from the unit. The fact that Sam is
operating his business out of his flat is one of the circumstances that might prove he is in
violation of the agreement. Sam's latest creation, a dog barking gadget, may also be used as
evidence of noise complaints and disturbances to other renters, which resulted in a breach of the
lease. On the other hand, there is other data that can suggest that Sam is not in violation of the
agreement, such as the fact that Sam is not actively conducting business at that moment because
he has not yet sent any units of his new invention to the chain store. Additionally, there was no
indication that pets were prohibited unless it was specifically specified in the actual contract
between Sam and Quinn. Sam would contend that his creation, a dog barking mechanism, is akin
to a real dog since it only barks when someone is at the door, just like a real dog would when the
mailman or a stranger were to knock on his door. Sam may also contend that he told his landlord
Quinn about his new invention and that Quinn wished him success and urged him to keep
working on it. Quinn would counter that he had no idea what the new innovation entailed and
had not anticipated Sam doing business from the flat.
Sam's landlord does not have the power to evict him based on such rights and
responsibilities since Sam has not yet shipped the 1,000 gadgets, which lacked any evidence of
company activity. Furthermore, the noise complaint that the other residents are complaining
about might serve as a warning rather than an automatic eviction. Sam could be advised to take
away his dog barking equipment because it is now causing disruption to the other apartment
residents. Sam may use the disruption of the rental lease as one of his arguments if his landlord
tries to evict him.
References
Kubasek, N. K. (2012). Dynamic business law. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin
