Bus203 Business Law: Case Between Assessment Answers

Part a

In common law according to Folsom, Gordon, Spanogle, JFitzgerald & Van Alstine, (2012), “a contract is much more than just an agreement involving two or more parties.  For a contract to qualify to be a contact there has to be an offer, an intention to create an agreement that is binding legally, a price that is paid (this must not have to be in terms of money). And a contract can only enforceable in the event that the parties involved in the contract intend to create legal relations”. (p.88).  

To determine whether the parties involved in the contract had intentions of creating legal relations, an examination is done to check the existing circumstances at the particular point in time when the contract was executed. Nevertheless, there always exist some general assumption that agreements instituted between family members or relatives are not necessarily meant to create legal relations Bowie, (2017).  These assumptions are based on the argument that contracts between relatives or even family members are neither bargained nor negotiated as is done in other contracts. However, this assumption is refuted by available evidence. In this regard, a contract between relatives is enforceable as long as there is evidence to support that the parties involved intended that the contract creates a legal relation Meng, (2017).

In this particular case, between Peter and Brett, as is in all other cases dealing with agreements or contracts, an agreement or contract is only counted to be legally binding if and only if that particular agreement is enforceable by law. Family relations have no significance in the determination of binding and non-binding agreements. This is because an agreement is counted as binding if it fulfills the requirements of the law of contracts and not binding if it does not fulfill the requirements of the law of contracts. There are tenets that guide legal considerations in the determination of binding and non-binding contracts and family relationships in not one of them.

Part b

In the case of a contract that involves an offer and acceptance, like in this case, for instance, there are two parties. The person who makes the offer (offeror) and the one to whom the offer is made (offeree). The behavior of the two parties in the contract is applicable to be used in law to ascertain as to whether an offer is accepted or rejected. This includes a correspondence that has passed between the two parties involved in the contract.  In law the parties involved in a contract are judged by what they say, what they write, or do.  This is an objective standard applied in this case. In regard to this reasoning, it is evident that Brett accepted the offer.

What emerges, in this case, is that Brett did not like the diesel car. This is seen as a response that is a counteroffer in that it comes with additional or other qualification by saying that the car should not have been a diesel one O'Brien, (2017). This is not accepted since it is a form of a counter offer and a counter offer changes the terms and conditions of the proposed contract. An offer has to be accepted unconditionally if the agreement is reached fairly. In this particular case, Brett had time to reject the offer upon realizing that it was not part of what they discussed in their agreement.  However, upon getting the letter and the delivered car, Brett though not liking it did not return it to Peter. In addition, he did not immediately contact peter concerning the car. He began using it driving to and fro university for a period of three weeks. From this action, it can be concluded without any reasonable doubt that Brett accepted the offer.

Part c

An offer has to have some considerations made. According to Loewenstein, (2016) for a contract to be legally binding it has to be reinforced by a valuable consideration. The importance of a consideration arises from the fact that in the absence of a consideration, the contract does not qualify to be called a contract but rather a gift. With this kind of change them, the terms also change and there is a difference in the treatment applied legally. In the event that two or more parties agree to enter into a contract then a consideration is needed to qualify the contract as a contract and not a gift.  Consideration makes the agreement formal, valid and binding in the law of contracts.  Consideration is very important given the fact that it forms one of the three core requirements in addition to a shared consent and in conjunction with a valid offer and acceptance Twomey, Jennings & Greene, (2016).  

In this case, the quoted value in terms of dollars that Peter has quoted is the consideration. What this means is that among the two parties, one promises to do one thing and the other in return provides benefit for the value which is the consideration. The value which is the consideration serves as the trust agreement between the two parties Peter and Brett.  Lieberman, Siedel, Warner & Mayer (2016), elaborates that “A consideration can be anything of value which may comprise of a promise to do or not to do something, or the promise to desist from exercising some right” (p.78)

Basically, a consideration simply implies the give-and-take aspect valued items or services. In this scenario, Peter was exchanging his car for the money. In many occasions, the considerations come in monetary form. That is most items or services are paid in terms of money the point here is that Brett and Peter had to exchange something. And that thing has to be of value. In other words, a contract must be based on some value. Consideration is of the essence. It is the only way both parties can have to experience the obligation in the contract. In the absence of an obligation, the exchange would likely be treated as a gift according to Cohen, (2016). 

Part d

A contract is only void in the event that it includes some contracts that are made by minors, or in the event that the contract is induced by misrepresentation, duress or undue influence. In situations where there is the occurrence of a common mistake (that is a mistake which is made or that is shared) by both parties). In such situation, there is the chance that such an error can be corrected. A court of law may order for such errors to be corrected. Brett cannot avoid a contractual contradiction based on his mistaken belief Mante & Ndekugri, (2017).  Even though in law it is an obvious thing to classify a misunderstanding of a contract that is committed by either of the parties in the contract as a mistake, it is important to note that in the law of contracts, a mistake only applies to vital facts. That is facts that go down to the very root of the contract in question.

He ought to have raised this issue upon receiving the offer. By his action, Brett nullified the possibility of raising such a claim. By driving the vehicle for three weeks his action was assumed to mean he accepted the order, and that stands since parties in a contract are also judged by their actions.  He ought to have confirmed that the vehicle was a diesel one. Taking all aspects of contract law into consideration, Brett cannot avoid the contract. According to Boldt, Kassis, & Smith, (2017), a contract requires that the parties involved adhering to the legal requirements set out in the contract. All parties involved in the contract must realize that once a contract is legally binding they are obliged to obey according to Park, (2017).  The need for instituting a legal contract is to create legal relations that are well defined and understood by those involved. In this regard, the contract itself does not have to state that you comprehend and internalize intended legal results Babu, (2017)

A contract can be considered to be void in the event that there is any form of falsehood, undue influence, or such things as unconscionable dealings. In the case of Brett and Peter, none of these was evident. By using the vehicle for three weeks it was assumed that from this action he accepted the offer and subsequently it was assumed that Brett in his legal capacity entered into a contract in his own free will and clearly understanding the terms of the contract and consented to them.

Works cited

Folsom, R. H., Gordon, M. W., Spanogle, J. A., Fitzgerald, P. L., & Van Alstine, M. P. (2012). International business transactions: a problem-oriented coursebook.

Loewenstein, M. (2016). Rationalizing Entity Law: Corporate Law and Alternative Forms of Business.

Twomey, D. P., Jennings, M. M., & Greene, S. M. (2016). Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume. Nelson Education.

Lieberman, J., Siedel, G., Warner, D., & Mayer, D. (2016). Foundations of Business Law and the Legal Environment.

Cohen, S. L. (2016). The 5th Annual Professor Anthony J. Santoro Business Law Lecture: Enforcing Insider Trading Laws: the Changing Landscape (Doctoral dissertation, Roger Williams University).

Babu, R. R. (2017). Law and Business: Comparative Perspectives. In Management Education in India (pp. 159-181). Springer Singapore.

Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Boldt, D. J., Kassis, M. M., & Smith, W. J. (2017). Factors impacting the likelihood of student withdrawals in core business classes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(4), 415-430.

O'Brien, J. (Ed.). (2017). Corporate Business Responsibility. Routledge.

Meng, X. (2017). The Labor Contract Law, Macro Conditions, Self?Selection, and Labor Market Outcomes for Migrants in China. Asian Economic Policy Review, 12(1), 45-65.

Mante, J., & Ndekugri, I. (2017). Interplay between contract and public law: implications for major construction contracts and transparency.

Park, A. (2017). Comment on “The Labor Contract Law, Macro Conditions, Self?Selection, and Labor Market Outcomes for Migrants in China”. Asian Economic Policy Review, 12(1), 66-67.

Pargendler, M. (2017). Comparative Contract Law and Development: The Missing Link?.