Business Law Assignment Reports

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT1
1
Issue
a. The first issue in the case is whether there is an existence of implied-in-fact contract
between Welsh Realtors and Robert Roberts.
b. The second issue in the case is whether Welsh Realtors would be eligible for quasi-
contractual recovery.
Rule
As per the decisions of the Supreme Court in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v United States
(1923) any agreements that have been formed through meetings of the minds which have not
been embodied in any kind of express contracts are implied-in-fact contracts.
For an implied-in-fact contract to be valid three elements are required to be present -
offer and acceptance, exchange of consideration and existence of mutual intention.
In the judgment of Clay v. Independent School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County (1997) the
term quasi contract has been defined as a document enforced by the court intended for the
prevention of one party to be dishonestly profiting at expense of another party, even in the
absence of any type of contract between them.
Application
Applying the definition provided in the Baltimore case in the given scenario it can be
observed that there was no agreement formed through implied terms between the parties.
As per the facts of the case, Randolph, on behalf of Welsh, wanted to enter into a
contract with Roberts which was declined by Roberts. This proves that although there had
been an offer, yet no acceptance was made. Roberts further refused to pay Randolph’s

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT2
commission, which proves that there was no consideration been exchanged and hence there
was no intention of Roberts to be entering into contract with Randolph.
Applying the judgment of Clay case in this scenario Welsh can recover quasi-contract
as Ralph had provided service which was accepted by Roberts. Roberts did not pay Randolph
his commission although Roberts took advantage of the service provided.
Conclusion
a. There was no implied-in-fact contract.
b. Welsh can claim quasi-contractual compensation.
2
a. An offer under the common law of contract can be defined as a promise between two
or more parties to be performing certain conducts (Bayern, 2015). For an offer to be
considered as valid three elements are required to be fulfilled. These three elements
are- communication, commitment and definite terms. The first element requires the
offeror to be communicating his offer to the offeree either in written or in verbal
terms. The second element requires the offeror to have the intent to be bound by his
offer. The third element is to ensure that the terms in the offer are specific (Smits,
2017).
b. In the given scenario the Bordenten Board of Public had advised in writing that
individuals who are in the top 15% in their list would only be eligible for hiring. This
can constitute as communication. The communication was intended to be bound as it
was following the state law requirements. The term to hire only from the top 15% of
the list can be considered as specific. Therefore, the facts in the scenario meet the
requirements of a valid offer.