Agreement between Marquis and Ruth - Case Study Example

Institution: Name: Date: Word count: 2020 BUSINESS LAW Step1. For the formation of a valid contract, between two parties, the two parties must have the intention to bind themselves legally. This is per the principles of law (Ferraro-Mila, 2002). Step 2. For a contract that is legally enforceable to be formed, the following main requirements must be put into consideration; an agreement, there must be an intention and consideration. The agreement should be made legally bound at the time it is being made. This is because any agreement is can be legally enforceable if and only if the involved parties at the time they were making an agreement they made it legally bound. In consideration, there must be a promise that convinces the party to come to an agreement. The parties also should be competent when they sign an agreement. This ensures that there is a strong contractual capacity (Horwitz, 2001). The set agreement can take any form that is, under a seal or even written form. In consideration, a promise made becomes enforceable if thereby the law if it is made by a seal. In this rule of consideration, there must be a goal that one has to meet in order to gain the promise made. In the case study, Ruth’s finance, Marquis is promised $ 185 as his salary should he join that finance company (Hurst, 1970). He admits the offer and joins Ruth Company. He is further promised a salary of $205 due to his continued performance. Later his salary is reduced to normal since there was some downturn in the industry. An intention in any contract means that every single person who is involved in any contract must have the intention to be bound by that specific agreement. Every individual should have a legal obligation and has to be serious on that obligation. The management had agreed to offer Marquis a salary of $ 205K to please him due to his effort. The intention, in the case of Marquis and Ruth, shows that Ruth expected a continuous growth of the company without downfalls while that of Marquis was to have an increment in his salary (Parkinson, J.E., 1995). The agreement is broken when Marquis does not meet the target by Ruth that is the reason she decides to reduce his salary back to normal. A contract is having all the properties, that is, the contract has an offer that is provided by one party to another having an acceptance of the offer. It also has an agreement that is legally binding having also a legal capacity that allows you to get into the contract freely without being forced by the other party (Kelly, Holmes, & Hayward, 2005, P 64). It also has a clear consent of the involved party may be illegal in case there are the following circumstances arising; there is a statement which is false, the influence is undue, or the offer is also illegal (Metzger, Dalton, and Hill, 1993). Step 3. Since an agreement is legally enforceable only if the parties involved at the time it was made to be bound legally, assessing the circumstance involving Marquis and Ruth, the agreement between Marquis and Ruth is substantial. Ruth promised to pay Marquis $ 185K to join his firm. Marquis goes ahead and resigns from his previous workplace at Red Rock Company. He agrees to the term that Ruth set on his salary of $ 185K. Ruth and the management come to an agreement to increase Marquis Salary to $ 205K (Loss and Cowett, 1958). The presumption is that the two parties were legally bound. There was evident that Marquis and Ruth had the intention to be bound together by the time they made the agreement of increasing the salary. The salary is then reduced to normal due to the downturn in the business. The agreement must have an intention that is set between the involved parties. The intention must also be in line with the promise that has to be set between the parties. Marquis is promised an increment in his salary, and this is even written down as an agreement between the two parties. The increment in his salary was to motivate him in his effort at work (Pierce, 2010). Given that the two parties were in agreement, the company should pay Marquis the salary that was promised. For one, he had already planned for the money in that he wanted to purchase an investment property and he was already in a struggle to save a deposit which was decent. Secondly, the salary should be paid to Marquis since the company had promised him for his effort in the development of the company which was already noted in the company (Pinello, 1995). Their agreement was indicated. The downturn in the company could also be as a result of failures of the management and not Marquis. This is not a justifiable reason as to why the company should not pay increased salary to him. The contract that was binding the two parties could not be viewed as illegal due to the following facts; the agreement that Marquis and Ruth had made, there was no illegal offer. There is no clear information that shows that the contract was void. The contract does not also show where there was an undue influence (Binning et al., 2002). To conclude, there is a likelihood that the salary agreement is legally enforceable since they had set an agreement on his salary. There is also evidence in written form; the agreement was written the first day that Marquis reported on his new workplace at Ruth’s company. This shows that the agreement was binding, and the salary agreement was binding there is no reason why he denied the request for salary increment. Marquis can enforce for salary increment since there was a contract that was already formed between him and the Ruth’s industry (Schaffer et al., 2011). In the scenario, of the case between Ruth and Marquis the element of consideration is present. In the element of consideration, a promise has to enforceable at the law if it has a support made under a seal. Consideration involves an exchange of promises between the parties involved. The promises may be in term of the payment of a specific amount of money, or one may promise to perform a certain task and in return the other party to have some conditions that it has set to meet with their counterparts (Ship and Girgis, 2012). In the case between Marquis and Ruth, there is a written agreement, but there is no point in which the two parties exchange promises. The two had no set target for each party to meet. This does not make this agreement between Ruth and Marquis to be a contract. This is because there are times when there are exceptions to the rule of consideration. In case the documents are under a seal, it is not necessary for the consideration to bind the contract (Anderson, & Kumpf, 1976, P 72). Step 1 The principle of law in the formation of a valid contract, between two or more parties, they must be intending willingly to bind themselves legally (Clark, 1917). Step 2 The formation of a legally enforceable contract it requires the following be available, there must be an agreement between the parties, there must also be a consideration, and finally there must be an intention. Every complete contract must reveal t5he following conditions; agreement, it is either written or oral. This will depend on the type of a contract. In the agreement, one party commits to offer certain terms and conditions that the other party has either to accept or reject (Blackburn, 1980). Every complete agreement has to have consideration. In setting the consideration and agreement, there is clear information that defines what one party is expected to do for the other party. The agreement becomes legally enforceable if the parties come to an intention of being legally bound at the time of making the agreement. Intention applies when the case does not require a court of law. That is, it is objectively judged (Keenan, & Riches, 2007, P 98). In the case of intention, the judge has to be satisfied that the parties involved had the intention to be a legal consequence. The agreement could be commercial, domestic and domestic and social. If the agreement between the parties is domestic, then it is presumed that there is no intention to make this agreement legally enforced (Balotti and Finkelstein, 1986). Should any member of the family claim that the agreement that there had was legally bound the court presses the party involved to produce a circumstance that can prove that there was a legal bond between the involved parties who are family members. In a business case, the agreement has to be binding legally. A contract that is legally binding is one that has already given an offer to the other party, and the party accepts the offer. The agreement is converted into a contract by the intention to be in a legal relation. For legal consequences to be taken the court seeks for clear evidence that the involved parties had been in an agreement to be in a binding law (Bernstein, 1996.). Step3 The main question, in this case, is whether the salary increment would be binding for a reasonable person. The parties that are involved in the agreement are in a commercial context. Therefore, the court has to presume that the agreement must have been legally binding at the time it was being made. In case, the agreement was not binding when it was being made the Ruth’s have to produce evidence to disapprove the presumption that the court is likely to take. Marquis has a way to argue that the agreement was binding at that time (Judges, 1999, p 13). For one, the increment of his salary was as a result of his good performance in the company by then. Marquis had shown an excellent approach in the progress of the company. This made Ruth’s come into a decision that they had to increase his salary from $ 185K to $ 205K. Ruth’s company had come into an agreement that (Clark, 1917) Marquis should have his salary increased and even entered the information in writing on the first day he reported to the new workplace. This written information will assist Marquis to prove that they had a binding agreement between him and the Ruth finance company (Fiduciaries, 2011). Secondly, marquis had already planned to buy an investment property bearing in mind of his new income. He had already been in a struggle to save for a deposit for the property that he was planning to have. This shows that Marquis was accounting for his new income. This is a good evident that even gives a strong weight to the argument too by Marquis. The contract has no evidence that it could be void since there it is not indicated that there was undue influence we are not also told that any party had no a clear understanding of the involvement in the contract formation (August, Mayer, and Bixby, 2009). Step 4 In conclusion, there is a likelihood that the salary increment by the company was legally enforced since Marquis and Ruth must have had the intention to be legally bound at the time they made the agreement on salary increment. Since they had a written agreement on the salary, this means that they had already formed a contract. Marquis, therefore, can be in a position to enforce an agreement between him and the Ruth’s company. In the scenario, the element of intention and agreement are available. The salary agreement was not done orally. It was written down the first day that Marquis reported to Ruth’s company. The offer that was given to Marquis of the $ 205K was accepted by Marquis. This is evident since Marquis had already included his salary in his investment plans. When they made the agreement, there was no undue influence on any single party. Therefore, the contract was not void. When the agreement was being made, there was an element of intention since they wanted to be legally bound. The court’s presumption is that the parties were in a legal bound. The presence of consideration in the case shows that there were elements of an agreement. Bibliography August, R., Mayer, D. and Bixby, M., 2009. International Business Law: text, cases, and readings. Pearson education. Anderson, R. A., & Kumpf, W. A. (1976). Business law. Cincinnati, South-Western Pub. Co. Balotti, R.F. and Finkelstein, J.A., 1986. The Delaware Law of Corporations and Business Organizations (pp. 4-1). Aspen Law & Business. Bernstein, L., 1996. Merchant Law in a Merchant Court: Rethinking the Code's Search for Immanent Business Norms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144(5), pp.1765-1821. Epstein, E.M., 2007Binning, P., McCluskey, D., Grouf, J., Newman, S., Doets, M., Leemrijse, J., Floriani, B., and Lindsey, M.K., 2002. Business Law International. Blackburn, J.D., 1980. Restricted employer discharge rights: A changing concept of employment at will. American Business Law Journal, 17(4), pp.467-492. Clark, J.M., 1917. Business acceleration and the law of demand: A technical factor in economic cycles. The Journal of Political Economy, pp.217-235. . The good company: Rhetoric or reality? Corporate social responsibility and business ethics are redux. American business law journal, 44(2), pp.207-222. Ferraro-Mila, P., 2002. Business Law international. International Business Lawyer. Fiduciaries, I.O.E.B.P., 2011. Business Law Section. Horwitz, H., 2001. Industrializing English Law: Entrepreneurship and Business Organization, 1720–1844. By Ron Harris. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Xvi+ 332 pp. Bibliography, references, tables, index. Cloth, $59.95. ISBN 0-521-66275-3. Business History Review, 75(02), pp.427-429. Hurst, J.W., 1970. The legitimacy of the business corporation in the law of the United States, 1780-1970. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Imus, N.W., Cremades, B.M., Douglas, J.L., Winer, J.M., Webster, T.H., Janow, M.E. and Waelde, T., Business Law International. Judge, S. (1999). Business law. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Macmillan. Kelly, D., Holmes, A. E. M., & Hayward, R. (2005). Business law. London, Cavendish. Keenan, D. J., & Riches, S. (2007). Business law. Harlow, Pearson Longman. Loss, L. and Cowett, E.M., 1958. Blue sky law. Little, Brown. Metzger, M., Dalton, D.R. and Hill, J.W., 1993. The organization of ethics and the ethics of organizations: The case of expanded organizational ethics audits. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(01), pp.27-44. O'Neal, F., 1958. Close Corporations. Pierce, R.J., 2010. Administrative law treatise (Vol. 3). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Parkinson, J.E., 1995. Corporate power and responsibility: Issues in the theory of company law. OUP Catalogue. Pinello, D.R., 1995. The impact of judicial selection method on State-Supreme-Court policy: Innovation, reaction, and atrophy (No. 80). Praeger Pub Text. Schaffer, R., Agusti, F., Dhooge, L. and Earle, B., 2011. International business law and its environment. Cengage learning. The ship, A. And Girgis, J., 2012. Canadian Business Law. Read More