CONTRACT LAW 1
Derrick & Andrea and the GTO Convertible
The question in this case is whether the two men have a contract. Yes, they have a contract. The legal issues in this case are the timing of acceptance of the offer made by Professor Derrick and to Andrea and when the contract could be deemed as legally terminated. The recipient of the offer, Andrea is legally allowed to reject or make a counter-offer, or even terminate the offer upon receipt of the offer. Termination is after a “reasonable” period of time (Goodchild, Herring & Milosevic, 2000). Another legal issue about the case is whether the Derrick had the right to terminate the implied contract he had established with Andrea.
Legally, offers and their revocation are executable upon receipt by the second party. Derrick had earlier on indicated that he was in a rush and he expected Andrea to reply within two weeks. By September 7th 2014, it was premature for Derrick to terminate the contract and sell the jeep to Chloe. The time of termination was not “reasonable,” to warrant a termination of the contract. Furthermore, the mailbox rule also applies in this case. An offer binds the offeror to the offeree as long as it is properly mailed regardless of the offeree’s receipt of the mail. Considering that Derrick received Andrea’s mail on September 10th, it was still within the two weeks he had indicated. Thus, the terminating the contract and selling the vehicle to Chloe amounts to a breach of contract. Derrick has no right to revoke the offer and Andrea can only reject or accept the offer upon receipt of the offer.
Derrick & Robinsons – I’m so hungry
The Robinsons have the right to keep the jeep, butthe law of contracts presents defenses in favor of Derrick. TheDerricks can make the following legal argument to compel the courtnot to enforce the contract:
Unconscionability- the contract constituted unfair bargaining since it is unreasonable to take an expensive car such as jeep as a consideration for food. They can argue that by deciding to give the jeep as consideration, they clearly did not have a meaningful choice hence, they were disadvantaged. Unfair bargaining is a legal defense against enforcement of a contract such as this.
The Robinsons can make the following legalargument(s):
Consideration must be sufficient and does not need to be adequate (Ribstein, 2012). This rule is best defense for the Robinsons because the law is not concerned with the attractiveness of the bargain in a contract. The jeep was the consideration for the food, and both parties agreed to it without coercion from the Robinsons. The offeror agrees to give, or gives consideration to the offeree. In this case, the Robinson’s agreed to take the jeep as consideration, which Derrick gave willfully. Considering that, Derrick did so without coercion, asking for withdrawal of the jeep as consideration is a breach of contract. The jeep is a sufficient consideration even though it may be excessively above the value of the food Derrick and his wife ate.
The rule does not postulate how much the offeror can give as consideration. As long as the contracting parties agree, the contract is enforceable notwithstanding the value of the consideration.
Consideration in the law of contract has a rule that stipulates it to only come from the promisee to the promisor (Taylor & Taylor, 2013). In this case, Derrick made the promise himself and not through a third party. The contract is enforceable.
Brian & TVsRUS
The case is about whether Brain had the legalcapacity to contract with TVsRUS. Brainwants his money back after realizing that TV was not worth the $6000had paid to TVsRUS. The law court is probable to make a presidingbased on the following legal arguments:
It is true that Brian was a minor at the time he purchased the TV set. It was also a mistake for TVsRUS not ask about his age. The contract is, however, not voidable because Brian made the claim after he had already turned 18 years old. Most common law contracts allow minors to only void a contract when they are still minors (Koffman & Macdonald, 2010). The contract becomes enforceable as soon as they turn the age of majority. This is an exception that compels minors to act within the reasonable time within which they realize that they signed or engaged in a contract they were not legally capable of engaging in.
Chloe/Sexy Girls & Hot Trends
No. Chloe and Sexy Girls & hot trends do nothave a contract because their agreement does not fulfill all theelements of a valid and enforceable contract. The agreement failed tofulfill the following elements:
Although Chloe and Hot trends exchanged promisesof 30% on the profits of the clothes sold in mutual consideration,they did not agree. The contract was only enforceable as per theterms of the initial terms of the 30% of profits to go to hottrends and Chloe to take the remainingamount of profits. When hot trendsdecided to change their terms to 50% of the profits, the contractbecame voidable, unless Chloe willfully accepts the new terms througha formal amendment after renegotiation.
At first hot trends had accepted Chloe’s offer,which is an essential part of the contract. Deciding to set a newoffer at 50% could as well be treated as a counter-offer. Acounter-offer is not acceptance of a contract hence, they twoparties do not have a contract (Collins, 2003).
Collins, H. (2003). Thelaw of contract. Cambridge UniversityPress.
Goodchild, A., Herring, C., & Milosevic, Z.(2000, June). Business Contracts for B2B. In ISDO.
Koffman, L., & Macdonald, E. (2010). Thelaw of contract. Oxford UniversityPress.
Ribstein, L. E. (2012). Choosing Law by Contract.J. Corp. L.,18, 245.
Taylor, R., & Taylor, D. (2013). ContractLaw Directions. Oxford UniversityPress.