Browse through the curated selection of our completed assessments to get a sense of the quality and depth of our work. Whether you need guidance, inspiration, or just want to evaluate our work, this page is your go-to resource.
Contracts are “agreement[s] that [are] enforceable by a court of law or equity” and consist of an offer, the party making the offer, and an offeree, the party accepting the offer (Cheeseman, 2007, p. 200). Among the different types of contracts are: bilateral, unilateral, express, implied-in-fact, Quasi, formal, and informal. Despite the variations of contracts, each contract is enforceable if the terms within the contract are agreed upon by both parties, a consideration is given, all parties have contractual capacity, and the object of the contract is legal (Cheeseman, 2007). The purpose of this paper is to provide examples of different contracts and if the contracts are enforceable.
Grocery, Inc. and Masterpiece Construction signed a contract in regard to Masterpiece Construction completing a renovation within a six-month period. This renovation would take place at the largest Grocery, Inc. store in My Town on Main Street, and no mention of a sub-contractor, or any possibility of one inside the details of the contract. Grocery, Inc. was to pay for some materials up front and the balance when the job was finished to their satisfaction of what had been agreed upon.
When Masterpiece realized they could not complete the job on time, they should have first contacted all the current contracted jobs and made some revisions to involve staffing and time concerns for the customer’s peace of mind. They could have mentioned the sub-contractor at this point and listened to how the people responded before letting Grocery Inc. find out on their own that this company would invariably become part of the deal. [From Grocery’s point of view, these guys really weren’t part of the deal, were they?] One would also think that Masterpiece Construction would have taken time to learn about Build Them To Fall prior to using them so that their reputation would not be scarred from both not using reputable sub-contractors and not stating they would in their contract. When the work was completed poorly and Grocery, Inc. realized who had done the job, they sued for breach of contract. Masterpiece Construction ended up using the Commercial Impracticability defense. This applies only when all three elements of the doctrine present a united front. The three items are: Something unexpected must have occurred; the risk of the occurrence must not be assigned [“assumed?”] by the contract or by custom; and the unexpected occurrence must have rendered performance commercially impracticable. Should a contractor prove “impracticability” of a contract; it is entitled to recover its costs of attempting to perform the contract, provided that the contractor did not presume the risk of impossibility (Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, n.d.). Grocery, Inc. wins only by a thread because the work had been completed poorly, and this was not acceptable. [What is the “thread” that Grocery wins by? I’m not sure I understand.] Although Masterpiece Construction seemed to use a sub-contractor illegally, they did not. Because there was nothing listed in the detailed contract about a sub-contractor being part of the deal, it lost by a slight margin to Grocery, Inc.
Jeff Fresh, a minor under 18, purchased a car from Smooth Sales Used Cars. During the purchase, Jeff signed a contract stating that he would make monthly payments on the vehicle. Smooth Sales Used Cars never questioned Jeff’s age at the time of signing the contract, and simply assumed he was at least 18. The issue is that Jeff has lost his job and can no longer make the payments that he agreed to via a contract. Jeff has returned the car and asked for his money back.
A couple of different scenarios exist with different outcomes. The first scenario is that because Jeff did not lie about his age, he can receive his money back. The dealership never asked his age, therefore no lying happened. Another possible outcome is that if Jeff reached the age of majority after purchasing the car and never said anything the contract would be considered ratified. Because Jeff’s birthday is unknown, it is unclear if he would fall into this scenario. The outcome is: minors are allowed to contract for necessaries of life and can be held liable. If Jeff needed this vehicle to go to and from work or school, the vehicle could be considered a necessity of life; therefore, he could be held accountable for payments. [Necessaries normally mean food and shelter. People survive without cars.] Although I disagree with you last statement, your analysis is very good.
In this case scenario Tom Green the produce manager for the U.S.A Grocery Store plans on retiring in two years. He has acquired a very special hobby, model trains. He decided that once he does retire he wants to travel the world by train and wants to sell his trains but first offer the trains to his fellow train hobbyist Harry. When hearing this Harry did express that he looked forward to the day when he could buy the trains. In cases of promises like this one, the law requires that a party receive consideration for the deal. Consideration is some type of value that is being exchanged between the parties. Through the next two years Harry used most of his savings adding an addition onto his house, to make room for the trains. When Tom did retire, he sold the trains to someone else. Harry believed this was a breach of contact between the two parties related to promissory estoppel. The consideration for this case should be adequate, a reasonable gesture given the circumstances of the agreement.
In this case the court would strongly rule in Harry’s favor, he relied on the word or promise of Tom, so it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. “In the law of contracts, the doctrine that provides that if a party changes his or her position substantially either by acting or forbearing from acting in reliance upon a gratuitous promise, then that party can enforce the promise although the essential elements of a contract are not present” (Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008).
George, an online customer, filed a lawsuit because he ordered all the remaining stock of a discontinued chocolate sauce that was advertised at a reduced price and the store website claimed that the store sold out of the product when it still had 10 cases left in inventory. George demanded that Grocery, Inc pull stock from other stores in the local area to meet his order. When Grocery, Inc. refused, George claimed that the contract was not effective and he should receive all available products from all three stores at the sales price or that he should receive damages equal to the amount of money he would have made from selling cakes made with the chocolate sauce.
The online contract for service was a bilateral agreement in which the offeror’s promise was answered with the offeree’s promise of acceptance (Cheeseman, 2007). [Which party is which?] The online shopping contract stipulated, “customers agree to the terms and conditions of the contract the first time a customer enters an online order,” which meets the requirements of the E-sign Act of 2000. The agreement is valid because it meets the essential elements to establish a contract. The contract required the customer to agree to the terms and conditions prior to placing orders. The terms and conditions provided legally sufficient consideration, which included the clause that stated that advertised prices did not apply to online purchases.
Transactions regarding e-commerce usually complete a contract [Do you mean require a completed contract? Transactions don’t complete contracts.] before conducting business. This makes it difficult to determine if the offeree has contractual capacity because there is no physical contact with the customer until delivery. George appears to meet contractual capacity requirements as a small business owner. George stated the terms of the contract when he referred to the 10-mile radius for delivery; therefore, demonstrating an understanding of the terms of the contract.
George obligated himself to abide by the terms and conditions when he made the online purchase from Grocery, Inc. Grocery, Inc is not required to provide any other quantity of merchandise except what was ordered and available from the nearest store at full price. George did not honor the terms of the contract and should be required to pay full price for the merchandise. The law is in Grocery, Inc.’s favor.
As seen through the examples given in this paper, all parties involved in an agreement are responsible for understanding the boundaries and terms of a contract, and in some cases if a contract exists. Because contracts are voluntary, both parties are subject to upholding the terms stated in their agreement (Cheeseman, 2007). The law does not show favoritism to either offerer or offeree, but holds both offerer and offeree to the terms voluntarily agreed upon by both parties. Despite misunderstandings, a contract is valid and a court of law will enforce the terms disclosed within the contract, whether written or verbal.
Cheeseman, H. R. (2007). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. (n.d.). Practice Areas. Retrieved from http:// http://www.cohenseglias.com/government-contracts.php?action=view&id=236
The Gale Group, Inc. (2008). Legal Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelegaldictionary.com
All orders at our writing service are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.
