Life Skills Project Research Assignment

Life Skills Project Research Assignment

The case provided between Fun Company and the Church of Stranger Things entails suing for damages after a broken promise, which the pastor regards as a contract. The pastor requested Fun Company to donate to the church $300,000, to which the company offered assurance of providing. Later, Fun explained that it could not deliver its promise because it had been financially deprived. The Church of Stranger Things is suing the company for the fulfillment of the promise, as the pastor already spent $400,000 on architectural design, $750,000 for labor, and $1,100,000 for tools and materials of expanding the church.

A contract is a legally binding agreement between parties. Legal contracts are based on mutual agreements where the parties involved consent willingly without coercion, as they understand the terms of the deal they enter. Further, the terms and conditions of the contract must be clearly elaborated for identical understanding among the parties involved. In the case of the Church of Stranger Things versus Fun Company, the latter party willingly accepts the offer presented to the company by the church. The company CEO accepts to give the amount requested and issues a timeline of offering the money, which was four to six weeks after the agreement. While Fun Inc. is responsible for failing to deliver on the promise, it appears not accountable for the expenditures the pastors incurred based on the assurance of the commitment, as the agreement did not entail details of when he could begin the church expansion work.

Case Laws

Affinitec, plaintiff v. Siemens, defendant, no. G025942, March 25th, 2002

The plaintiff, a software company, sued the defendant for failing to disclose the names of the developer company’s customers and failing to pay the invoices that arose after the work. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded $4.24 million as damages, and prejudgment interest of $743,956. Upon the appeal of the verdict by Siemens, the company lost the case, and the initial ruling was upheld, and the initial plaintiff remained with the benefits of the compensated damages from the case. One of the reasons the defendant lost the case was for failing to disclose all the material components of the agreements knowingly, which made it impossible for Affinitec to understand which part was expected to handle software support, which was the duty of the developer. Therefore, the software company continued to work for the developer, unaware that its invoices could not be produced because its work was done by the developer.

The case Affinitec v. Siemens is of breach of contract. Notably, the terms and conditions that were broken were implied, as the software company expected to work with the developer under full disclosure of the customers that would be served. Unfortunately, Siemens withheld the information to avoid paying Affinitec. Therefore, once a contract has consented, there are expectations that cannot be broken even if they were not stated in the written agreement. For instance, in the case of the Church of Stranger Things versus Fun company, there is an unwritten agreement to channel all the money donated by Fun to expanding the church and not any other activity, such as buying a church van. When the implied agreements and conditions are breached, the contract becomes unenforceable and unbinding.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd, 1915, UKHL 1, AC 847

Dunlop had a policy requiring that all its agents were not to resell its products at a lower price than the price at which the firm sold them to avoid cases of underpricing. Dunlop then sold tires to one of its agents, named Dew and Co. who sold the tires to a third party, named Selfridge and Co Ltd. While the first agent sold the tires at the required price to ensure that the product’s retail price was controlled, Selfridge and Co Ltd. sold them at a lower cost, altering the market price of the tires. The court held that Dunlop did not deserve compensation by Selfridge and Co Ltd as the company was not part of its contract with agents, who were supposed to maintain the pricing policy, even when they offered discounts. Conclusively, the items that are mentioned in the terms and conditions of a contract do not bind non-parties from it. In the case of the Church of Stranger versus Fun Company, the church failed to inform the expected donor of plans to begin working on the expansion project in the expectation that Fun Company would compensate for it. The church also failed to offer updates of the expansion project, as Fun Company had the right to know, considering that was directly affected by the activity. Therefore, the church would not acquire compensation for failing to include material facts in the agreement, thereby keeping Fun Company unknowing of ongoing issues that would influence the contract.

In relation to the case of the Church of Stranger versus Fun Company, it is clear that the spending of the pastor on the expansion of the church was missing in the agreement. Accordingly, the donor, Fun Inc., was supposed to offer money to be used in the development, but was not liable to meet expenses that were previously borne without the company’s knowledge. Therefore, the church’s expenditures are immaterial to the contract, as there lacked an agreement by the donor to give the pastor the go-ahead to begin the project. Since the case before the court is not for Fun Company to honor their contract based on the lapsed time but to compensate the church for the money already spent in expectation of donation from Fun Company, the Church of Stranger is undeserving of any damages, as the defendant caused them.

Jane Doe versus Richard Roe, 1990, no. A042776,

The plaintiff sued the defendant for failing to disclose to her that he suffered from virus herpes simplex II, which he transferred to her. The defendant argued that he failed to inform the plaintiff because he lacked symptoms and could not think he could transfer the disease in 1985. However, the Court of Appeals of California held Roe liable for carelessly transmitting a sexually transmitted disease, and he was ordered to pay Doe damages worth $150,000.

The case of Roe versus Richard is also based on the implied terms of a contract, which is to disclose all information that affects the other party’s well-being in the agreement. Failure to offer the information makes the contract voidable, as the knowledge could have influenced the other party’s consent to be in the contract. Therefore, the disclosure leads the accepting party to consent to terms involuntarily, as they are unaware of them. The situation is similar to Fun Company, as the Church of Stranger fails to inform the donor of its intention to begin working on the expansion project before receiving the donation, which could have influenced the donor’s willingness to accept the agreement.