Contract law – scenario assessment
In the given context, Sally had made an oral agreement with Lisa and promised to pay her $500 every month to support her. Oral agreements are equal to agreements made through writing. Such agreements can be said to be a valid contract and are enforceable under the Canadian contract law (Yates, 2012). However, Lisa had no recording or any other evidence or witness of the conversation about the agreement. Suing someone for contract breach is only possible if the concerned party can provide evidence in support of their claim in the court of law. Due to lack of evidence, this agreement can be considered as a casual one, and the appeal of contract breach may be turned down. In case Lisa could have provided evidence that meets any of the mentioned criteria, the agreement could have been treated as a legal binding. In the current situation, the court may reject Lisa’s appeal due to lack of evidence.
- Contract law has quite a few elements. Consideration in case of a contract states that both the parties involved in the agreement have undergone a negotiation and have come at interchangeable terms. In the given scenario, Bill and Joe had agreed to make a payment of Susan on a mutual basis. Also, both the parties had a mutual agreement to abandon the contract. Considerations in contracts are identified to be exchangeable with a varying consideration proposing similar value, provided the involved parties need to have consent (Yates, 2012). Susan has not been involved in the contract during the initial agreement and thus cannot say anything for or against it. This makes the law applicable to Bill and Joe only despite Susan suffering a loss at the receiving end. As both of the involved individuals have made a mutual agreement of contract abandonment and Susan was initially not involved, they cannot be sued by law.
- Canadian law requires certain factors to be met for a contract to be considered as a legal bind. Those include offer, consideration, mutuality, competency, and agreement (Yates, 2012). The proposed exchange of product or services is considered as an offer. The offer is made in exchange for something valuable from the other party. Consideration can be defined as the agreed-upon negotiation of the value of the proposed item between the two parties. The term mutuality can be defined as the willingness of the parties to stick to their obligations while competency can be defined as the legal capacity of the two parties along with their healthy mindset when the contract is formed. The last element, acceptance involves the stage where the offers made upon the agreed terms and conditions are accepted between both parties (Craswell, 1989). As for example, Joy wanted digital marketing services for his new business and offered to pay $100 per week to a reputed company for the services. The terms and conditions were discussed for consideration and upon mutual agreement; they decided to sign the contract document to abide the contract.
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
- Considering the situation that an agreement was signed for the shipment delivery, recovering damages can be possible (Birmingham, 1969). The merchants providing the counterfeit phones can be sued based on the fact that a contract was signed and the value that was agreed upon was not delivered. It can be regarded as a contract breach, and the contract law offers ‘Award of Damages’ in case of such breaches (Yates, 2012). The suffering party receives compensation as per the law. If I try to sell the counterfeit phones, the customers can freely refuse t pay as again, the value that they are paying for is not being delivered to them, and the court of law cannot force them. The element of consideration is violated, and the customers can sue my business, in a similar way that I can sue the merchants for contract violation.
Reference
Birmingham, R. L. (1969). Breach of contract, damage measures, and economic efficiency. Rutgers L. Rev., 24, 273.
Craswell, R. (1989). Contract law, default rules, and the philosophy of promising. Michigan Law Review, 88(3), 489-529.
Yates, R. A. (2012). Legal Fundamentals for Canadian Business. Pearson Education Canada.