historical and theoretical background of contracts
Considering the historical and theoretical background of contracts, it is apparent that the contract involving the two parties is valid. The reason to support my argument is that the contract had satisfied all elements required for it to be legally binding (offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create a legal relationship). However, the contract cannot be enforced under the law due to the contradictions made by one party (real estate developer) after agreeing to the terms and signing the contract. Thus, under the law, the contract is valid. However, the law cannot compel the parties to enforce the contract because of the contradictions brought thereafter.
It was unethical for Fab Coffee to hide its original identity when approaching this transaction. Markedly, drawing from the ethics of law, there is a concept referred to as impugning a contract. This occurs when the integrity of the contract is compromised. Impugning of the contract in this particular case surfaced when Fab Coffee hid its original identity to get an advantage when making the contract. Indeed, this act compromised one clause that underpins the terms of the agreement in a contract, consequently leaving the other party in a state of jeopardy.
The endeavors by the real estate developer to terminate the agreement and even go ahead to request for more money for the property is unethical. In point of fact, while the contract can be terminated, the claim for additional payment is not ethical at all. Although legally, the enforceability of this contract is warranted, the developer needs to exercise fairness when negotiating the agreement. That said, there is no need for the developer to categorize whom to negotiate with and what amount should be charged. Thus, it is unethical.