Custom «Four Step Process» Essay Paper

1. Misty and Jackson

Intention to Be Legally Bound

STEP 1: The Legal Issue

It is important to appreciate the fact that the law of contract is of vital significance to the way an economy operates. The question regarding Misty and Jackson and the software to improve business operations concerns a number of concepts relating to the law of contract. One of these concepts is the intention to be legally bound. The legal issue in question is whether both parties have established an intention to be legally bound in making a valid contract.

STEP 2: The Principle of Law

When two parties are in an agreement in a commercial context, the law presumes that they intend to be legally bound by the agreement. This principle was evident in the case of Edward v Skyways Ltd. In this case, the claimant who was a pilot was to withdraw his contributions to the defendant (airline company). The latter said that if the claimant did this, they would pay him an equivalent amount in an ex gratia payment. The claimant agreed and withdrew his contributions. Afterwards, the company financial status declined. Consequently, they did not pay the claimant the ex gratia payment they had agreed. The court was left with the task of deciding whether the contract was legally binding or not. The court argued that the agreement was legally binding because the parties made it in a business context. Therefore, the claimant could enforce the agreement and was also entitled to get his money.

•  

  0

  Preparing Orders

•  

  0

  Active Writers

•  

  0%

  Positive Feedback

•  

  0

  Support Agents

 

Title of your paper

Type of service

Type of assignment

Number of pages

-

+

Academic level

Timeframes

Spacing

Currency

USD

• Total price

Continue to order

 

STEP 3: The Application of the Law

There is a need to undertake an assessment of the various circumstances under which Misty and Jackson made the agreement. Moreover, the court needs to establish whether, in such circumstances, a reasonable individual would regard the software agreement as intended to be legally binding. The parties here are cousins. They attended a social meeting when Jackson came to learn about the opportunity. Despite the fact that they are cousins, Jackson only consulted Misty after the event in the capacity of a director of Comp-Sales Pty Ltd. Similarly, Misty was acting in the capacity of the manager of Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd. Therefore, the circumstance under which the agreement was made is viewed in a business context. Moreover, Misty wrote an email to Jackson agreeing to pay $50,000 for the computer software.

STEP 4: Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a probability that the contract is legally enforceable because Misty and Jackson had the intention to be legally bound at the time when the agreement was made. For this reason, Jackson can enforce the contract. He should claim the $5,000 that Misty deducted as a family discount since offering a discount was not a part of the contract.

Consideration

STEP 1: The Legal Issue

In the law of contract, a consideration refers to the bargain of the contract (Andrews 87). Each party to a contract has to be both a promisee and a promisor, which means that each party has to suffer a detriment and, at the same time, receive a benefit. This detriment or benefit is the consideration. In Misty and Jackson’s case, there is a precise focus on the area of consideration. The legal issue is whether there is a valid consideration required in the formation of the contract. Moreover, there is a need to clearly state the value of the consideration.

STEP 2: The Principle of Law

In the law of contract, part payment of a debt is not a valid consideration, which is supported by Pinnel’s case (Latimer 63). The defendant owed the claimant $8 but paid him $5. The claimant then sued the defendant for the outstanding amount. The court ruled out that the claimant is entitled to $8 (the full amount) even if he agrees to settle for less (Pinnel). The part payment of a debt is not a valid consideration for a promise that the claimant forebears the balance.

STEP 3: The Application of the Law

Considering that paying a debt partially is not a valid consideration in contract law, Misty was breaching the contract they had with Jackson. In her email, she had agreed to pay the stated $50,000 but later refused. She claims that it was a family discount. However, she had not raised this issue when they entered into the contract. She only brings it up at the time of payment, which is a breach of contract. For this reason, Jackson is entitled to the full amount of $50,000. Furthermore, the agreement was made in a business/commercial context, despite the two parties were cousins.

STEP 4: Conclusion

In a nutshell, the contract is seen to be legally enforceable. For this reason, Jackson can sue Misty for a breach of contract since according to contract law, part payment of a debt is not a valid consideration.

2. Chicken Galore, Brian, and Christian

STEP 1: The Legal Issue

In the contract law, the element of the agreement is crucial (Latimer 23). The offeror makes an offer to the offeree. When the offeree accepts the offer, then the contract becomes binding. In the case of Chicken Galore, Brian, and Christian, the legal issue is whether there was a valid agreement which is necessary for the formation of a contract.

STEP 2: The Principle of Law

In relation to an agreement, it is vital and relevant to consider the concept of unilateral and bilateral contracts. A bilateral contract is a form of agreement in which both parties make a promise that they will do something when they enter into the agreement. On the other hand, a unilateral contract only requires one party to make a promise that is open to anyone who is willing to perform the specified action (CALI). A good form of unilateral contract is an advertisement. One may treat an advert as an offer or an invitation to treat, depending on the events under which it is done and what it entails.

As an invitation to treat, the reference is made to Partridge v Crittenden case. The litigant had placed an advert in a magazine where he offered to sell some birds on the market. However, the law prohibited the sale of that kind of bird. For this reason, the litigant was charged and convicted; nevertheless, he appealed against the conviction. The court quashed the defendant’s conviction (Partridge). It held that the advert he did was not an offer, but an invitation to treat.

On the other hand, as an offer, the reference is made to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case. In the case, an advert placed by the defendant indicated that the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company would pay £100 as a reward to anyone who contracted influenza after using the ball three times daily for a period of two weeks. Printed directions supplied with every ball indicated that £1000 had been deposited with the bank to show the company’s sincerity concerning the matter. Mrs. Carlill bought some smoke balls, used them following the given instructions, and caught the flu. Then, she sought to claim her £100 reward. The defendant argued that the advert was an invitation to treat since it was impossible to make an offer to the whole world. He also argued that there was no notification to show acceptance. In addition, he claimed that since it did not give a time limit in the advert, it was vague. There was also no consideration involved. According to the defendant, the ‘offer’ did not come clear or specify that the ball users had to purchase them. However, the court ruled differently. It held that Mrs. Carlill should be given the reward because the advert created a unilateral contract offer. The plaintiff had accepted the contract by implementing the conditions in the offer. The court held that it is possible to make an offer to the whole world. It also argued that there was no requirement that an offeree communicates his intention to agree/accept in unilateral contracts. The defendant was also seen to have value if people used the ball despite the fact that they had not directly bought them.

STEP 3: The Application of the Law

Focusing on Chicken Galore, Brian, and Christian, it is important to note that the contract was unilateral. Only one party, namely Chicken Galore, made the promise which was open to anyone who was willing to perform the actions required. For this reason, Brian bought 25 chicken dinner boxes that would have been redeemed for a scratch ticket. If one scratched the ticket and found a gold car, a person won it. There was only one car for the competition and Brian scratched it. Therefore, he met the conditions that had been stated. Consequently, there was an existence of a contract because of the reward stated in the advert. Chicken Galore breached the contract by failing to give Brian the reward. It is clear that Brian suffered a huge loss because of this, which is evident from the time he spent in the hospital and the money he used to buy the chicken he ate. Chicken Galore was responsible for this loss since they refused to pay him his reward.

STEP 4: Conclusion

In conclusion, according to contract law, Chicken Galore is obligated to provide Brian with the reward they had stated in the advert, a Mazda CX-9. Thus, the company and not Brian bears the responsibility for the error regarding the printed tickets. In the case of Christian, he collected the used dinner boxes and removed the attached coupons. He did not incur a cost and, therefore, he did not suffer any loss. Moreover, the advert was done to increase sales and, thus, collecting coupons from the waste bins did not improve sales in the company. For this reason and according to the law regarding unilateral contracts, the enforcement of the contract law will not be possible despite the fact that Christian had scratched two gold cars. Therefore, Chicken Galore is not obligated to provide Christian with a Mazda CX-9.