What to do about continuing to do business with Don - Essay Example

The contract is disadvantageous to the company, because in effect it ties the company to supply Don with grapes at quantities that he expects, and at prices that are far below the appreciating price of the grapes due to its improved popularity and increase in demand. A party in good faith will not do this, and it would be a spiritual, material, and psychological drain on the company to continue doing business with such a man. It is in the best interest of the company therefore to stop dealing with Don, and resort to the law to resolve the dispute (Justia, 2011; US Legal Inc.

, 2010; Meislik & Meislik, 2003; Lawnix, n.d.; Cornell University, 2010; Stim, 2012; Longhofer, 1997; US Legal Inc. (b), 2010; StasoSphere, 2009). II. Scenario: Stop Doing Business with Don- (1) Legal Causes of Action Don Might Bring Against Company; (2) Remedies, Damages that Don Might Seek; (3) Legal Defenses the Company May Have (1) Don, by presenting the contract, and by citing “accord with an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing” seems to know his law, and as such is assumed to press for the continuance of the supply of Cuppernog grapes to his business, on the terms stated in that contract signed by the son, using all of the legal means at his disposal.

First of course is the matter of the contract that the 17-year old son signed on behalf of the company, binding the company to the supply contract. Second, the stipulation on “implied duty of good faith and fair dealing” stipulates that the company is to not act in ways that would “unfairly” hinder in the way other parties are able to derive the contract benefits (Justia, 2011). Don is saying that by not continuing to supply his store with the grapes, the company is violating this. The law seems to be cognizant of this fair dealing and good faith formulation in contracts, and is mentioned in the legal literature in the same breath as implied contracts (State of Delaware, n.d.).

The idea of implied contracts is that, from the way the two parties have dealt with each other, from their conduct and actions, there is a contract existing, even if the contract is not entered into in words. Don can argue, from the implied contract principle, that not supplying him with grapes, as had been the practice, would be unfair to him, and would breach an implied contract in existence between him and the company (US Legal Inc., 2010). Don can also sue on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and argue that even without a contract, there is an implied promise for the company to continue supplying Don with the grapes (Cornell University, 2010; Lawnix, n.d.).

Don can also sue on the principle that should the company suddenly stop delivering grapes to him, because another company or other parties are willing to pay higher prices for the grapes, that the company would be in violation of lex mercatoria laws, or the merchant customs, which are common laws in operation and recognized, with regard to the rules and laws that govern the transactions and actuations off merchants (Farlex, 2012). Then there is the case precedent that Don can use to argue for the company to continue supplying grapes to him, the case of Sons of Thunder vs.

Borden, where the ruling was that where a firm is not “honest in fact” in terminating a contract to supply unilaterally, that firm continues to have liability attendant to that contract. Don can argue that the way the company terminated the supply agreement is in