Enterprise Law Assignment: Contract Law Issues and Agreements Analysis

This document presents a comprehensive solution to an enterprise law assignment, delving into key aspects of contract law. The assignment addresses scenarios involving the formation of agreements, analyzing the elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration. It explores the concept of intention to be legally bound, examining whether agreements are supported by the requisite intention. The solution references relevant case law, including Smith v Hughes, Lucy V Zehmer, and Balfour v Balfour, to support its arguments. Furthermore, the assignment considers issues of breach of contract and financial obligations, providing a detailed analysis of the legal principles involved. The document concludes with a thorough discussion of each scenario, offering clear and concise conclusions based on the application of legal principles and case precedents. The analysis covers the elements necessary for a valid contract, the importance of intention, and the consequences of failing to meet contractual obligations.

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

1ENTERPRISE LAW
Question 1
Issue
The issue that is to be discussed in this particular scenario is whether there would be an
existence of any kind of agreement between Elaine and Fran.
Relevant Law
Common law is considered to govern the contracts which are inclusive of the offer,
acceptance along with consideration. The offer along with acceptance are considered to form a
certain kind of mutual assent. The offer and acceptance is considered to be a traditional approach
in contract law. An offer is considered to be the willingness of an expression which would be
based on certain terms and conditions and it would be made with the intention of being binding.
There is an offeror and an offeree. The offeror is considered to be the party which puts forth an
offer or provides a proposal to the other party in a contract. The offeree is the party to whom
such an offer or any proposal has been addressed. The offer is considered to be certain
statements of term which are considered to be bound as the current intention of contractual
agreement is to be bound by a contract which would be definite as well as certain regarding the
terms that have been provided to the offeree. It can be observed from the case of Smith v
Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.
An acceptance on the other hand is considered to be one of the essential requirements for
a valid contract where the parties need to provide their assent to a certain offer or a proposal
made to them. Any party in a contract can resist the claim regarding the breach of contract is
they can prove that they had not intended on being bound by the contract. It can be understood
from the case of Lucy V Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516. An acceptance can only be

2ENTERPRISE LAW
considered to be appropriate if it has been an absolute and unqualified acceptance. The
acceptance is considered to be communicated to the offeror as it had been understood in the case
of Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.
Application
In this particular scenario, it can be understood that Elaine had offered a cleaning work to
Fran and such was for 10.00 dollars per hour initially. This was considered to be an offer.
However, Fran would only agree if the price was 15.00 dollars per hour. At last Elaine had made
a final offer claiming that she would pay 13.00 dollars per hour and use all the products provided
by her and gave Fran a significant amount of time to accept the offer. She had also added that if
she did not respond then it would imply that the offer had been accepted. Thus, it can be
understood that there had been an existence of an agreement between Fran and Elaine as there
had been an offeror and an offeree.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be understood from this particular scenario that there had been an
existence of an agreement between Elaine and Fran.
Question 2
Issue
The issue to be discussed in this particular scenario is whether there has been an
agreement which has been maintained as well as supported by requisite intention to be bound.

3ENTERPRISE LAW
Relevant Law
Intention in order to be legally bound is considered to be an essential requirement or a
necessary element of a contract which would be valid and enforceable by law. This is considered
to imply that all the parties are required to accept the terms of the contract which would be with
the intention to form a certain kind of legal intention. For a contractual agreement to be valid an
offer or a proposal needs to be made which would in turn have to be accepted. It can be
understood from the case of Plate v. Durst, 42 W.Va. 63, 66-67, 24 S.E. 580, 581, 32 LRA 404
(1896). Following the offer and intention the parties need to have the intention to form certain
legal relationships between themselves. Nevertheless, it is not considered to be essential to have
any kind of real or any apparent intention in order to form any kind of legal relationship. Such
are construed through the conduct of the various parties to such contract. It can be understood
from the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571. There are certain times where the parties
might not agree on being legally bound and the courts are considered to respect such terms until
and unless the agreement is considered to stand invalid. However, these are the kinds of
agreements which are considered to make it challenging or complex to interpret and analyze the
nature of any promise. If one of the parties have fulfilled one of their obligations to the
contractual agreement and the other fails to perform their part or the obligations then not making
the party who has failed to perform legally liable would be considered to be unjust enrichment. It
can be understood from the case of Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6. When the two parties
are considered to enter into any kind of legal relation they will try to comprehend and understand
the legal relations in all seriousness and the absence of the intention would make the contract or
the agreement unenforceable by law. It can be observed from the case of Simpkins v Pays [1955]
1 WLR 975.

4ENTERPRISE LAW
Application
It can be understood from this particular scenario, that Richard was an impoverished
student who had entered into an arrangement where Richard had agreed that he would keep the
front as well as the backyards of the family property mowed and he would do so by doing it in a
bit and along with such keep the gardens looking tidy. His father in return agrees to pay him a
weekly allowance which would be amounting to 200 dollars. After a while the father tells
Richard that he would not be able to pay his son a weekly allowance of 200 dollars and moreover
since it was his family as well it was his responsibility to do so as he was also getting free board
and lodging. It can be understood that during the starting of the arrangement there had been a
requisite intention to carry on and fulfill the conditions of the arrangement but later it could be
clearly understood and interpreted as per the afore-mentioned rule that there had been no
intention to fulfill the conditions laid down in the arrangement and thus, it can be stated that the
agreement was not considered to be supported by the requisite intention.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be understood from the above discussion, that there had been no
intention to support the requisite intention in the given scenario.
Question 1
Issue
The issue that is to be discussed in the present scenario is whether the amount that is
fifteen thousand dollars be paid to Andrew by Steve.

5ENTERPRISE LAW
Relevant Law
It can be understood from the case of Shevill v Builders Licensing Board [1982] HCA 47
that the tenant had made certain late payments of the rent and such was considered to be in a
manner which was consistent and due to the lease which had been terminated by the landlord. It
also included the possession in relation to the premises which were considered to be taken by the
landlord as a result or outcome of termination of the lease. The decision provided by the High
Court was considered to be in no violation in connection to the indispensable term and along
with such the lease have not been considered to be repudiated by the tenant as such was
considered to demonstrate and display an intention which would be binding for longer. There
needs to be a violation regarding the significant term or duration of an agreement pertaining to a
contract. Similarly, it can be understood from the case of Foley v Classique Coaches [1934] 2
KB 1.
Application
It can be understood through the case of Shevill v Builders Licensing Board [1982] HCA
47 that the tenant had made certain late payments which were relating to the rent and such was
being done in a manner which was consistent and due to such the lease was considered to be
terminated and there was a possession of the premises by the landlord which was an outcome of
the termination. Therefore, such was considered to not be in any violation as per the ruling of the
High Court and it had been caused in connection with something which was considered to be
indispensable and such was considered to be in accordance with the contract. In addition to such,
it had also been interpreted that the lease had not been disclaimed or rejected by the tenant as
such and therefore, the display or the demonstration of such would not be considered to be the
intention for being bound by such any longer. Thus, there should have been a violation regarding

6ENTERPRISE LAW
an important aspect of duration for the contract or the agreement. In this particular scenario,
there had been no such violation in respect to the contract with Steve and thus, the 15,000 dollars
amount would not be payable by him to Andrew.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded form the above discussion that the 15,000 dollars would
not be payable by Steve to Andrews.

7ENTERPRISE LAW
References
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.
Foley v Classique Coaches [1934] 2 KB 1.
Lucy V Zehmer, 196 Va 493 84 S.E. 2d 516.
Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6.
Plate v. Durst, 42 W.Va. 63, 66-67, 24 S.E. 580, 581, 32 LRA 404 (1896).
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board [1982] HCA 47.
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975.
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.