A written agreement

A written agreement

Milestone Two

A written agreement entered between two parties that is enforceable by law is made up of four elements, which include the agreement, contractual capacity, legality, and consideration. According to Kubasek (2012, ch. 13, p. 305), the first element of an agreement would be deemed to exists if one party, the offeror, makes a contractual offer to the second, the offeree, to enter into the contract by accepting the terms. In the case of Sam Stevens versus the chain store, the store manager offered to sell Sam’s new invention that featured the machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare intruders. Though verbal, the contractual terms are offered in good faith to the second party, Sam, who agrees to ship 1,000 units. This shows that the intent to enter into a contract by both parties is present and mutual. It is, however, not possible to prove that Sam agreed to deliver the good since there is no written document. This element will only be validated if the complainant proves before the court that the agreement was entered.

The second element of contractual capacity is considered present if the parties have the legal ability to enter into a contract. This requires the parties to be of minimum age, sane and competent to enter into a legal agreement. The verbal agreement between Sam and the store manager cannot be ascertained to the above board in terms of legal capacity as it is not proven if Sam was sober enough and of the legal age required to commit to such an agreement. The contractual validity of the agreement is based on the proof that Sam was mentally competent to enter into the contract.

The third element of legality is considered present if the two contractual parties show the intent to enter into a contract on a legal object that is not against the law. In the case of Sam Stevens versus the chain store, the contractual object is a mechanical invention, which is not an illegal item. This element is, therefore, present in the contract. The fourth element of consideration is considered present if an agreed valuable exchange is offered in return. The agreement between Sam and the chain store for the supply of 1,000 units of the machines does not feature any considerations that are expected after the delivery of goods. The lack of a compensational agreement is a critical query to the enforceability of the contract. This element does not exist, therefore invalidating the contract.

Even if all the elements that make up a contract were present, there could still be reasons a contract may not be valid.  For example, is Sam is a minor, the contract would be voidable.

According to Kubasek (2012, ch. 13, p. 305), minors are legally considered incompetent to understand the contractual terms and their legal obligations. A contract can also be considered invalid if there is not sufficient proof to show the agreement was entered by both parties.

A quasi-contract is defined as a contract the court imposes an obligation based on actions or circumstance to the defendant to prevent unjust enrichment at the cost of the second party (Kubasek, 2012, ch. 13, p. 312). A quasi-contract exists if the defendant receives considerations or benefits from the complainant. A quasi-contract is not present in the verbal agreement between Sam Stevens and the chain store. The agreement lacks basic elements that would render it to be an implied contract. In this case, no services were rendered to the defendant that would require the enforcement of an implied contract. The court cannot, therefore, enforce an implied contract as there were no benefits or considerations offered to the defendant to warrant a contractual obligation.

Promissory estoppels are defined ad legally enforceable promises that are considered contractual, which are entered by an individual, promisor, to the promisee who relies on the promise and is consequently harmed by the failure to fulfill the terms (Kubasek, 2012, ch. 15, p. 344). Despite the lack of an actual contract, the presence of a reliable intention is relied upon by the complainant and consequently incurs liabilities. A case based on promissory estoppel may be present against Sam Stevens, who makes a promise to deliver 1,000 units to the chain store. The validity of such as case will be, however, dependent on the complainant’s ability to prove that they incurred liability as a result of the defendant’s failure to keep the promise (ch. 15, p. 344).

The case between Sam Stevens and the landlord will depend on the terms of the lease contract entered between them. The rights and obligations in tenant contracts stipulate the rights and obligations of both parties that offer the tenant rights to use the apartment while offering considerations. The evection notice given to Sam Stevens as a result of his invention making noise may be illegal. The validity of the notice will depend on the terms of the contract, which may or may not prohibit certain activities within the apartments. Sam can argue that the barking sound is of similar properties to that of an actual dog. The contractual terms will also dictate whether Sam was allowed to conduct business from the apartment. Under lease agreements, the tenant is required to pay the rent in full and timely on the agreed period of time, e.g., monthly. The tenant is also required to commit not to create disturbances to other tenants If the contractual agreement with the landlord does not prohibit dogs in the apartment, the landlord may not have a valid case against Sam.