Business Communications and Contract

Question: Define the term for Business Communications and Contract. Answer: 1. Issue: The issue here is whether an enforceable contract exists between Julie and Samantha since the communication of the acceptance of the contract was not as per desired format. Rule: An enforceable contract is one which is legally bound by law. If the contract is not performed as per the decided terms then the same becomes subject to legal remedy i.e. the plaintiff is subject to remedy for the loss he suffers due to a breach by the defendant in performance of the contract. Some of the essential elements for defining a contract as enforceable are as under : Offer: An offer is defined as an expression wherein one person shows his or her willingness to enter into a contract with the other person for performance of an act. An offer can be made either by messaging, or orally or in any such manner which shows an offer is being made. Thus all these elements confirm an offer. Acceptance: When an offer is accepted by the offeree, it is termed as acceptance. It is the final consent which the offeree gives after due negotiations between the two. Acceptance should be made by the offeree in the manner desired by the offeror[1]. However if the same is not done in the desired manner and the offeror fails to communicate to the offeree to accept the offer in the manner desired then it is construed that the offer has been accepted by the offeror even though not accepted in the manner prescribed by the offeree. Competent Parties: The parties to a contract should be competent enough to enter into a valid enforceable contract. Either of the parties should not be insane, minor, drunk or incapable to contract[2]. Lawful Subject Matter: The terms of the contract should not be such that violates the public policies or the law of the country where the performance of the contract is to be done. Mutual Obligation: The parties to the contract should be obligated to perform their individual. The terms should be agreed mutually and there should not be any kind of force. Consideration: The most important thing for a valid contract is consideration which may be either monetary or non-monetary in nature[3]. Application: Therefore in the said case an enforceable contract exists between Samantha and Julie as there is a clear cut offer and acceptance made in the said contract. Acceptance though not made in the form desired by Julie yet the same is enforceable as the mode of acceptance made by Samantha though not as desired by Julie yet Julie has not made any effort to ask her to communicate acceptance in the manner desired by her. Further it also contains all the other elements of a valid contract. Conclusion: Therefore in the said case a clear cut legally enforceable contract exists between the two parties. The elements of a contract to make it legally acceptable is duly present. 2.Issue: Whether Samantha is entitled to pay $100 to Julies mother? Rule: In any contract, the terms of the agreement can be altered only on the consent of the contracting parties. Until and unless the same is done, the contract is to be performed as decided upon without any deviation from either party. Application: Samantha is not entitled to pay $100 to Julies mother until and unless intimation is given by Julie to Samantha for the same. If Samantha does so without Julies consent then it would be understood that Samantha has not made good for the amount that she had asked for. She can pay to Julies mother but before doing so Samantha should intimate Julie and only if she agrees to the same, the payment of $100 can be made to her mother. If not then it leads to breach of contract on the part of Samantha[4] . Conclusion: In the said case thus it is clear that any act without the mutual consent of but the parties to a contract will be construed as a breach of contract and therefore Samantha is not entitled to do the same without obtaining consent from Julie. 3. Issue: Is promissory estoppel relevant to Samanthas dispute with Dave from outrageous costumes? Rule: A promissory estoppel is a principle which states that a promise to perform an act is enforceable by law even though there does not exist any consideration formally communicated, if the promisor has promised to the promise and depending upon the promise performs the act. Thus as per the doctrine of promissory estoppel the party who has performed his promise has the right to recover the consideration for the same even if a legal contract does not exist. The applicability of this doctrine depends upon the loss that the promise suffers due to non fulfilments of the promise. As per the said doctrine the party who has suffered damages has full rights to recover the same if the damage was caused due to existence of a promise made by the promisor basis which the promise fulfilled the promise. Thus some basic elements should be present for the successful application of the same: The promise made should be in such a reliable manner that entitled the promise to act accordingly. There was a reliance made by the promise upon the promise There was a significant loss that the performer of the promise suffered. The promise can gain respite only once the promise is fulfilled by the promisor[5]. Application: In the said case promissory estoppels is relevant to Samanthas dispute with Dave from outrageous costumes. Thus on analysing the same it is understood that Samantha had promised for the performance of the contract and there was an enforceable contract between the two by doctrine of promissory estoppel. When Dave had communicated Samantha about the cost and the fact that the materials she is demanding is a little expensive, Samantha gave her written consent over an email writing her to proceed with the work and that the measurements would be provided in a weeks time. When the materials were received, Dave informed her and started to work upon the same[6]. The said message was ignored by Samantha and remembers just two days before the show that she had to inform Dave about the cancellation of the order. However meanwhile Dave had already made the dresses. Thus Dave is entitled to be made good for the cost by Samantha as since she was promised by Samantha for the act basis which she pur chased the materials and after due information she performed the act thinking that since the promise was made, Samantha would take delivery of the same. But her denial at the last moment left Dave in a loss position which she could easily recover basis the promissory estoppel principle. It is very similar to the case of Devecmon v. Shaw. Conclusion: Therefore Dave can easily claim for the loss that she has suffered due to the same from Samantha. The promisor not performing his promise to pay the promise puts her in a position of breach of contract[7]. 4. Issue: Is Will entitled to two free tickets for helping setup of the school play? Rule: It is a contract implied in fact and not in law. A contract that is implied in fact is not expressly defined but comes into existence due to availability of certain facts and figures which clearly points towards an intent to enter into a contract on mutual terms. The situation is such that basis which depending upon the normal course the parties conduct makes it evident that their exists a legal intention for the performance of the contract. Implied contracts do not any kind of assent from the parties to a contract but the assent exists automatically by virtue of the performance by the promise and acceptance of the performance by the promisor[8]. Application: In the said circumstance Samantha had sent an email to all parents that the first ten volunteers would get two free tickets of the show and on receiving this email Will, the elder brother of a student who is performing volunteers for the same so that he gets the free tickets. Even though the email clearly mentioned about the parents as volunteers, the same is still applicable for Will as well. Even though he is not a parent of the student but has shown his willingness to assist and Samantha has accepted is help also the said contract falls under the purview of an implied contract[9]. Therefore in the said scenario also an implied in fact contract exists between Will and Samantha. Although Will is not the parent of the student but his elder brother and the offer was proposed for the parents only, but Will proposed to assist basis that email only. Had Samantha not given such an email, then Will would have never come up to volunteer. Conclusion: Thus it is implied and understood that if Will has agreed to help then the sole reason is the consideration offered by Samantha. The same is also communicated well that Will has volunteered due to the email received. Had Samantha not agreed to the services of Will then it would have been clear that she only wants the help of parents and nobody else but that was not the issue. She ultimately was looking for assistance. Therefore Will is rightfully entitled to the two free tickets for helping for the set up for the school play[10].