Who should Dirk sue? Why? Will the Court rule that a contract was created? Why or why not? If so, between which parties? Why? If not, why not? If so, is it enforceable? Why or why not?
In the interest of determining who Dirk should sue, it would be advisable to establish whether there was a binding contract by considering all the elements that form a contract and determining if a particular party violated the binding provisions. A contract is a promise or an array of promises that are regarded as an agreement that legally binds two or more parties and agree to execute a certain undertaking and provides a remedy for the violation of the other terms by either party. It is compulsory that a contract be in writing and each party must show their intent for the existence of the contract. Such intent would be enforceable in a court of law when deciding if a contract exists, along with other specific factors, namely, legality, capacity, acceptance, offer and consideration. An offer is the inclination to enter into a bargain, which represents assent to a binding contract. Smith called Dirk and asked for 5 police bikes, and in the affirmation letter Smith sent to Biff thanking him for ordering the bikes on his behalf, Smith showed his voluntary intent to enter into a binding agreement. Acceptance denotes agreement with the terms offered by the offeree in a way that matches the offeror’s preferences. Dirk consented to Smith’s request by acknowledging the offer made by Smith, implying that he agreed to the contract.
Additionally, consideration is needed once the offer is made, which is the actual performance or promise to perform, which serves as the price of the agreed promise. Each party in the agreement must give up something valuable to the other party. There was consideration in this case because Smith stated his desire to give a price for the police bikes and Dirk placed the order for the bikes, which he opted to use his own money to sell bikes to Smith at cost price. Smith requested Right into the contract and Right acted in good faith in completing the contract because he believed that Smith was going to accept and pay for the specialty bikes. The contract was legal because it is legal to sell bikes for money. Capacity is the ability for the contracting parties to execute and comply with the contract provisions and in this case, both parties were sufficiently capable of entering into a binding contract. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
In this case, Dirk should sue Smith, who acted on the police department’s behalf and the police department for breaching the legal contract. It is unlikely that Smith’s actions were not initially endorsed by the police department, seeing that he was a sane individual who had the capacity to make sound decisions based on the position he held at the department. Moreover, Dirk only ordered the bikes because Smith had requested for them, an agreement that was further solidified by Biff appending his signature on a letter agreeing to the terms of supply. The letter is adequate confirmation of a valid oral contract and smith’s sign indicated the existence of a valid and mutual agreement between Smith and dirk that the police bikes be ordered.
Lastly, it is clear that both parties were of sound mind and each knew what was expected of them to meet the obligations of the verbal contract. Each party had the capacity to make the contract as Dirk was the shop owner while smith was the police chief. Ultimately, the undertakings that occurred between the two parties did not warrant a written contract. However, it should be noted that the contract might not be enforceable because the goods must not only be accepted but also received, which Smith did not. Nonetheless, in determining the enforceability of this contract, the open price term agrees for parties to make a contract for sale despite not settling on a price, but however advancing that the price be reasonable. In this case, Smith was specific in his request for ‘top of the line’ police bicycles, to which Dirk consented by setting a very reasonable price for the usually pricey items. Since Smith was aware that the top range products would not cost as the usual bikes do, it renders the contract enforceable.
Assume that the Court ruled that a contract was created, and that it was breached. Who is the responsible party? What type of relief is Dirk entitled to? Against whom? Why?
If the Court established that a contract was made and determined that it was violated, the answerable party would be police department headed by Smith. In determining the kind of relief Dirk is entitled to, it must first be noted that the statue of frauds advances that despite a contract not being written and no exact cost being taken into consideration, selling goods worth over $500 must be accompanied by a written agreement. Dirk may posit that his decision to buy the bikes is unenforceable through way of action as the agreement was not accompanied in writing for the goods costing $17,500 as stipulated in the statue of frauds. However, regardless if the contract between Smith and Dirk was written or not, the contract becomes enforceable if the goods are specifically customized for the buyer, implying that they cannot be sold to any other party. In this case, the bikes had to be specifically customized for the police department as ordered. They had to have the word ‘POLICE” on the side, coupled with other special markings associated only with the police. Customizing these bikes in this manner means that they could not have been availed to any other party or taken back to the company for resale. In consideration of these facts, the court should determine that a contract was made and that it was binding and enforceable.
Conclusively, it is also advisable to support the validity of this contract by borrowing from the provisions of the objective theory in contract law. The law advances that any agreement between two parties is considered legally binding if another party who is not part of the contract and is of a sound mind determines that the contract is legally binding. The party reaches this decision by assessing the external acts of the parties entering into the contract and determining that they had an intention to enter into a binding agreement. Hence, if the external acts engaged in by the parties confirm that they willingly entered into a contract through one party making an offer and the other party agreeing to the offer and providing suitable consideration to ensure delivery, then the contract is duly enforceable. Hence, the external acts that Dirk and Smith performed concerning the delivery of the bikes confirms that they entered into a legally binding contract as they were of sound mind and each knew what to expect from each party to ensure that the delivery was as it should have been as articulated in the verbal contract.