Contract Law Case Study: Examining Camille and Sonya's Agreement

This case study analyzes a contract law scenario involving Camille and Sonya. The document examines whether a valid contract was formed between the two parties for the sewing of sweaters. It identifies the key elements of a contract, including offer, acceptance, and consideration, referencing legal precedents such as the Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts and cases like Lefkowitz v. Great Minn Store Inc. The analysis determines that while offer, acceptance, and legal purpose were present, the absence of consideration (Camille's failure to pay Sonya) invalidated the contract. The study concludes that Sonya would likely be unsuccessful in suing Cardware Inc. for breach of contract, providing a detailed legal rationale and referencing relevant case law.

Running head: CONTRACT LAW
CONTRACT LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

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 of ProCD, 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
contract is illegal or against public policy, then such contract is void. In Stoddard v.
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.

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. Martin 1 R.I. 1 (1828)
The Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts (1981)