This article discusses the provisions of contract law, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and legality. It explores relevant case studies and legal principles.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: CONTRACT LAW CONTRACT LAW Name of the Student: Name of the University: Author Note:
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1CONTRACT LAW Introduction: The issue involved in this case study is whether there is any contract executed between Camille and Sonya. Rules: The Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts (1981) provides for the provisions of contract law in USA. The contract is a mutual agreement enforceable by law, between two or more parties creating rights and obligations for each other (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2019). The main ingredients of a contract are offer, acceptance, consideration and legal purpose (Smits 2017). According to Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v US (1923), the mutual consent is actually acknowledgement and meeting of minds of the parties to the contract and is generally established by the process of offer and acceptance. Consensus ad idem or meeting of minds is a term in contract law that denotes the intentions of the parties forming contract. Lefkowitz v. Great Minn Store Inc(1957)provides that offer is a promise showing willingness by the promisor to be legally bound by the terms of the contract. Acceptance in general means giving assent to the terms of the offer. Acceptance occurs when an offeree gives consent to be mutually bound to the terms of the contract by giving some consideration or something valuable to seal the deal as discussed in the case ofProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg(7th Cir. 1996). The next element of a valid contract is known as consideration. Consideration is defined under section 75 of the Restatement of the Law of contracts. According to Fire Ins. Ass’n v.
2CONTRACT LAW Wickham (1891), it was held by Justice Brown that in order to form a valid agreement, there must be presence of consideration and meeting of minds of the parties in relation to such contract. In Philpot v Gruninger (1871), Justice Strong held that nothing is to be regarded as consideration if it is not agreed upon by both the parties to the contract. So the essential criterion is that in order to constitute a contract, consideration must be present and it has to be finalized upon agreement of the parties contracting. The last ingredient of a contract is that it must have a legal purpose and must not be against public policy. The contract must be executed for a legal purpose. If the objective of the contractisillegaloragainstpublicpolicy,thensuchcontractisvoid.InStoddardv. Martin(1828)it was decided that it was void to be on the outcome of a Senate election as it was contrary to public policy to take part in gambling. Application: In the given case, it is found that the elements of offer, acceptance, mutual consent and legality are present. Offer was made by Camille to Sonya to sew 500 sweaters of specific requirement. Sonya agreed to sew them and even delivered them in time. The objective of Camille is lawful and not against public policy. However, the element of consideration was not present in the case. Camille did not make any payment to Sonya for sewing the sweaters. She forgot to make traditional 25% down payment to Sonya. Hence, the consideration part was missing.
3CONTRACT LAW Conclusion: From the above discussion, it can be concluded that there was no valid contract between them. In this regard, the prior course of dealings of Camille and Sonya had no effect on the present dealing between them. Moreover, it would be difficult to succeed if Sonya wants to sue Cardware Inc. for the breach of contract.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4CONTRACT LAW References: Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v US, 261 U.S 592 (1923) Fire Ins. Ass’n v. Wickham, 141 U.S 564, 579 (1891) Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2019.Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Lefkowitz v. Great Minn Store Inc, 86 NW 2d 689 (1957) Philpot v Gruninger, 81 U.S. 570, 577 (1871) ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) Smits, J.M. ed., 2017.Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing Stoddard v. Martin1 R.I. 1 (1828) The Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts (1981)