Business Law Application
Case (ii) Sam VS chain store
For a contract to be binding, there has to be free will and proper consent between the parties in the contract. Provided that there is binding will, acceptance and legal capacity to enter into a deal it matures into a concreate and a valid contract. Nevertheless, if any of the above elements misses it become void (Maloni, 2006). In the case of Sam and chain store. There was is express contract since there is acceptance and intentions to enter into agreement. Sam agreed to supply and the chain store had the urge to purchase from Sam. On the other negative side of the Sam’s and Chain store, in court of law the contract can become void. This contract becomes void since there is no court paper or document signed in existence between the Chain store and Sam contract to ascertain the agreements were made. The chain can try to sue Sam by the legal framework of promissory estoppel however, the court will have to need evidence in either a recorded form or written of the prior agreement of Chain store case (Maloni, 2006).
Sam’s case has four important elements of a contract: the legal object, the agreement, the consideration and the contractual capacity. By delivering the stipulated 1,000 units of the gadgets, Sam’s agreement with the store is met since the store accepted the goods. However, he failed to establish the amount payable to him before supplying the barking devices thereby failing to meet the element of consideration. However, the element of contractual capacity was not known. Sam’s case does not have enough evidence to determine if he had the capacity to enter into a contract at that time. It is evident that Sam would not have the capacity to enter into an agreement if he was a minor or under the influence of certain drugs or medications. Nevertheless, by solely using the available information, the element of the contractual property was met. Lastly, the element of the legal object would only be applicable if there was an absence of other copyrights protecting comparable types of gadgets.
The chain store had to meet various conditions to be in line with elements of quasi-contract. First, the claimant to the defendant must bestow reimbursement. Second, the defendant must be aware of benefits conferred upon her. Third, the defendant preserves recompense under unjust conditions and without payment. In this case, the elements of the quasi-contract were not met because no benefits were conferred on the defendant. The elements of promissory estoppels would be met under the following conditions. First, one of the parties to the contract makes a promise in full knowledge that the other party will depend on it. Second, the other party to the contract depends on the promise. Third, injustice can only be avoided through implementing the outlined promise. It is evident that the two initial aspects have been met, but the third element is questionable. Therefore, this case does not meet the promissory estoppels’ requirements.
Sam vs Landlord
In the case above, the landlord and the tenant, Sam, are only bonded by the tenancy contract. It is from the contract signed that stipulates both roles and obligation of both the landlord and Sam. The landlord has every right to evict any tenant that breaches the terms and condition of the tenancy contract. After the contract is signed, the landlord has limited jurisdiction applying to tenants and will only refer to contract. However, Sam is allowed to sue the landlord provided that the it is not for any other reason but for noise caused by the gadget. Sam can prove that there is discrimination leveled on him based on his race and any other form. If there is proof beyond doubt that he his only discriminated, he can sue (Schaffer at el, 2011). Finally, depending on the type of tenant he is, will guarantee him to stay until the time of exit is reached as per the contract. In the business world, there is need always to know clear distinctions between persons. That is, in law the business is solely considered a different entity from the owner. The contracting capacities and when this is understood it is clear to operate smoothly (Schaffer at el, 2011).
Sam’s eviction results from the kind of disturbance he creates while developing the barking devices. The disturbance was enough to compel the landlord to evict Sam if the noise was denying other tenants the right to quiet enjoyment. Janet I Benitez v Sebastino Restifo case demonstrates that the landlord may be held accountable for disturbing other tenants’ peace by failing to question Sam. As a result, the eviction provided under this basis is acceptable. Besides, Sam was not permitted to carry out business activities in his residence. Sam’s only business was the statement that he would supply 1000 units to the store, but not create them in residence. Therefore, the breach of contract forms another basis of evicting Sam from the premises.
Sam may also defend himself on various grounds if the landlord attempts to evict him. First, Sam may argue that the mistake was honest and sensible because he was unaware of the disturbance made by other tenants. Second, the landlord did not inform Sam about disturbances, and thus, he cannot be held responsible for breaching the contract. Moreover, the requirement to keep calm was not part of the agreement as Sam was not in any contract with the chain store.
In both cases between Sam and the chain store the elements of a valid contract has add to come hand in hand ( Sherwin,2015) . For instance, in the tenancy both Sam and Landlord must have had the intention to create legal relations and that is why one would argue that the land lord took an obligatory measure to write an email which will save as an evidence of eviction to Sam. And in valid contract if both had signed the tenancy contract it would mean there is legal intentions to get into contract and if there would be no intention from either of parties one would have pulled out, making the contract void. On the case scenario of chain store there is no clear indication of legal intentions put on paper and Sam can easily indicate without prejudice incase the chain store sues him. Additionally, the offer which was accepted by Sam do exist both between the landlord and chain store. In landlord case Sam, has been staying in the house until there was disturbance of the barking gadget hence there was offer given through the rent levied on the house. On the chain store case offer existed as soon as he was approached to supply the 10000 gadgets and he was willing.
Moreover, the need of acceptance only existed between Sam and Landlord in that he agreed and started staying in the house with the condition of payment of rent of rental houses and this automatically brought in the element of consideration as soon as Sam payed the first rent of the month. However, in the chain store it is more of counter offer since there was no action carried by Sam to show acceptance safe for the verbal agreement which is less convincing and this led to no consideration in the case of the chain store and Sam. Finally, in both cases of Land lord and chain Store the aspect of contractual capacity is questionable. This is because there is no clear indication that Sam was in the adult age to into a contract (Sherwin,2015). However, the Landlord can still have held Sam case in that, it was a provision of a necessity for a minor and would have to be in line to evict him.
Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1)
Schaffer, R., Agusti, F., Dhooge, L. J. & Earle, B. (2011). International business law and its environment. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Sherwin, Emily L. “Formal Elements of Contract and Fiduciary Law.” (2015).