TOTAL NUMER OF WORDS: 1500
TOTAL NUMER OF WORDS: 1500
Is there an enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie?
No, there is no enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie. In business law for a contract to be valid and enforceable under the law, the parties contracting should have contractual capacity. It refers to the competence to contract and is limited by age, status or condition. On age, the person entering into a contract has to be above 18 years old. In this case, Julie is 16 years of age hence a minor the contract entered into her, and Samantha is therefore unenforceable under the law.
The second aspect is that consideration has to be given for the contract to be enforceable. Consideration refers to some interest, benefit or profit that is a price that one part with to ensure that the contract is enforceable. Consideration has five rules for it to be legal; they are it must be real although it need not be adequate. The second aspect is that it must not be passed. Thirdly, the consideration must move from the promisee. The fourth aspect is that the consideration must be more than an existing obligation. The last aspect is that the consideration must be legal. In this case, no consideration was given between Samantha and Julie hence the contract is null and void. Additionally, none of the elements of consideration were fulfilled. The third aspect that makes the contract unenforceable is that Samantha did not use the channels stipulated by Julie to inform her that she had agreed to the terms of the contract that she had stipulated. Julie had clearly indicated that Samantha should post her a message through her Facebook page Awesome Cakes and Catering where she processes all her orders if she was interested in placing an order. Samantha did not follow the channel and instead sent her a text message stating her acceptance.
The fourth aspect is that there was no intention of the two parties to create any legal relations. When Samantha was contracting Julie to make cakes and sandwiches for the play in exchange for monetary compensation, she did not sign any contract. The intention of between the parties in their agreement did not constitute to have legal boundaries. The law is contrary to this aspect. According to the law, commercial or business agreements are automatically presumed by the courts that there is a need to form legal associations, except when the parties concerned place in a clause that their agreement shall not be binding in law but shall be binding in honor only.
Nevertheless, in majority countries, the sale of goods above a specified amount has to be in writing to make it enforceable in the courts of law. Otherwise, the law is not applicable in case the buyer accepts part of the goods so sold, and also receive. Also, if a purchaser gives something with intentions to bind the agreement or in part payment of goods. Lastly, unless some note or memorandum in writing of the contract signed by the party after making it or with an agreement to have it charged against his agent on his behalf.
The case that is similar to this one is the Baindridge v Firmstone 1838
Assuming there is an enforceable contract between Julie and Samantha, does Samantha need to pay $100 to Julie’s mother, Martha?
No, Samantha is not obligated to pay Julie’s mother, Martha, $100 if the contract was enforceable the reason is based on the privity of a contract. The aspect of Privity of a contract comes to play in this case. In business law, the term Privity to a contract refers to a relationship that does exist between the members that have entered into a mutually binding agreement. Martha, Julie’s, mother was not involved in any contractual agreement with Samantha. Therefore, she cannot request for payment from her. Samantha is therefore, not under any obligation to pay her any amount of money but her daughter with whom they had entered into a contractually binding agreement. Martha should demand payment from her daughter who used her ingredients for her business without her consent. Additionally, she cannot sue her daughter for using ingredients that were present in the home since it is not a registered place of business. On this case scenario, Samantha, the teacher is relieved from any obligation that pertains to her paying Martha $100 for her daughter’s decisions.
Is promissory estoppel relevant to Samantha’s dispute with Dave from ‘Outrageous Costumes’?
Yes, the promissory estoppel is relevant to Samantha’s dispute with Dave from the outrageous Costumes. The term promissory estoppel is based on Equity principle that does ensure the existence of fairness in the society and law. The term promissory estoppel refers to a principle that prevents one from reverting from their position once they have made a promise to another person and the person acted upon the promise.
The promise is enforceable even if it lacks the basic elements of a contract that is, no consideration that has moved from the promisor to the promisee. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has the following elements; promisor has to make the promise to the promisee. Secondly, the promisee has to act upon the promise. Thirdly, the promise has to have suffered a particular loss and finally the reprieve can only be achieved when the promisor acts upon their promise.
In our case, Samantha contacted Dave and made an order for the uniforms. In their interactions Dave clearly informed Samantha that the extra silver and blue that she needed in the uniforms would cost him more. Samantha gave Dave the go ahead to purchase the materials; this is an indication of an existence of a promise. After Dave had bought the materials, he contacted Samantha and informed her that he had started the process of making the party uniforms and if she had any objections she should inform him. Samantha did not reply to Dave’s message due to her negligence and Dave acted upon the promise and made the uniforms. Therefore, fulfilling the second element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel stipulated above.
After two days Samantha calls and informs Dave to cancel the order, this was a little too late since Dave had already made the uniforms. Therefore, the cancellation of the order is an indication that Dave had already incurred a loss from the purchase of the expensive silver and blue materials. The third element has already been fulfilled since the promisee has incurred a loss as a result of the cancellation of the promise.
Dave has no place that he can sell the costumes that he has made from which he has incurred a loss in terms of time and finances due to Samantha canceling the order. The only relief for Dave will be for Samantha to go ahead and purchase the costumes since it is her one fault that she failed to cancel the order on time. It, therefore, fulfills the last aspect of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
The case that simulates to this is the Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, 1947
Is Will entitled to two free tickets for helping set up for the school play?
No, Will is not entitled to the two free tickets for helping set up the school play. When Samantha placed the email requesting the first ten parents to assist in the set up for the play and they will be rewarded with two tickets if they arrive before 12:00 pm. The email was a clear indication that Samantha was binding herself in a unilateral contract with any of the parents who fulfilled the terms of the contract. Therefore, any parent who fulfilled her terms would have to be awarded the two free tickets. A unilateral contract on business law refers to a contract where only one party makes an express promise without getting a reciprocal agreement from the other party. In other words, the agreement is one-sided in that it moves from the offeror; that is the person making the promise, to the offeree.
The promise may be devoid of an act, or have one present. After the offeree has acted upon the promise and done what the law required of the agreement, the offeror is required by law to fulfill their end of the promise that will ensure that the contract comes to a successful termination. In this case study, Will does not deserve the two free tickets because he is not a parent to the school but an older brother of one of the students in the school. The message sent by the teacher, Samantha, was therefore not addressed to him. Therefore, there is no contract existing between Will and Samantha. Therefore, when Will acted upon the message and volunteered; the teacher was not obligated to give him the two free tickets since there was no contract existing between him and the teacher.
The case that is similar to this is the Carill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1893.