Contracts
In the scenario of Jones &Padavatton Ltd and the customer, Freda lies in the contract law. The case is all about the issue of not meeting the agreements put forth in the purchase of the advertised possum fur coats from the company, as the company had stated. The company had promised to sale the coats to the first twelve people who would come to buy them at $250. However, Freda wanted to be among the twelve individuals, and precisely the first person. Therefore, she decided to stay at the company’s gates to secure a position. Unfortunately, the next twelve individuals, excluding Freda, were given the coats. The primary issue in this scenario is the failure to adhere to the agreements set for the exchange. In the law of contract, there is a legal and valid agreement between two or more parties and one that is enforceable. The conclusion of a contract when the other party accepts an offer made by one party based on the law of contract. Also, the offer must not be uncertain, meaning that it must be made with the serious intention of creating legal bidding responsibilities. Jones &Padavatton Ltd did not adhere to the agreements set when they eliminated Freda, and therefore, the contract is enforceable. The best approach to solving these issues is absolute problem-solving. In this approach, the parties need to view the issue as black or white and solution as wrong or right. The approach dictates that there is a right way of doing things, and a problem that occurs may be as a result of the unawareness of the existing solution. It then implies that the right solution must be obtained from authoritative sources to confirm the solution. Therefore the company must have followed the law of contract in the process of selling the products based on their agreements with the customers.