Is There a Valid Enforceable Contract between Chen and John - Assignment Example

Contract Name Course Lecturer Date a) Is there a valid enforceable contract between Chen and John? According to facts and patterns of contract, the contract is valid and enforceable. John negotiations to build a house extension for Chen are demonstrated. The condition for John to finish the building by the set time was reached at. The background facts established between them involves an incomplete contract. An integrated contract involves all aspects of offer, consideration, capacity, acceptance, intent and legality if it has to be abiding (Scott & Triantis, 2005). In this case John and Chen’s offer, consideration and acceptance are valid from the prior discussion. However, at some degree, consideration did not entail increase of labor cost and thus it was not negotiated. The capacity for both parties; to cater for additional cost of materials and to meet the set deadline in June bound the agreement to be abiding. Though there was no formal signed contract, it gave the parties a ground for commitment to the terms and expectations. Despite the establishment of the offer and acceptance aspects, the terms were open to consideration, as parties had to converse of their capacities of cost. Any causation justified any party action, as John’s reluctance shows that it was completely hard to bring the contract to legality. The case may therefore be categorized under promissory terms, as the heated argument following their prior discussion can generate an endless cycle of failures. b) What arguments could Chen use to support his refusal to pay John more than the original agreed price? There were terms of contract agreed upon completion date which would have led to avoidance of hotel cost. The contract is a platform where expenditure, risks and timescales involved in delivery are set and agreed upon (Argyres & Mayer, 2007). Chen demonstrated the reasons for risk; the cost to be involved in case the extension works did not meet the set date. However, John, whose work is to assess any risk, and submit a contingency plan did not provide this at the beginning. The agreement on material cost was based on equal awareness of the then current prices of building products. However, labor is specifically determined by unequal awareness, as John would have deliberately increased it or hires the workers at a higher cost. Another aspect in the negotiation process that would have been considered by John is a contract under the terms of hasty delivery. Even with all these, Chen did not consider such additional as unjustifiable. John would not have assumed that the cost of labor would remain constant, and therefore it was necessary to set up risks and waiver terms. Chen would have then considered whether it was possible to meet that cost prior to commencement. Any recommendations following the first contract terms and discussions before the proposal were against the expectations but Chen paid for. However, the risks arising out in delivery process would not have been assigned to one party. The aftermath of unduly completion of the extension culminated to hotel cost in accommodation. This was known to John and was set in causation. John’s failure precisely led to unnecessary cost. It would also be expected that the labor cost were set on the upper limit to cater for unforeseen additions. By relating the immediate review of labor costs with the falling prices of goods, John would have wanted to charge extra fee to take advantage of the situation. The percentage increase from $6,000 to $10,000 was significant to consider that John had reasons other than labor cost, to avoid the blame on the set deadline of delivery. This would have been Chen first impression which was a manipulative action. The extension of the house was of no use in its completion date, and would be not in recent future as long as the purpose was gone. Adding more money than the agreed is not to Chen’s best interests. It was not also possible that the labor cost would have almost doubled, and in such a case, Chen reluctantly incurred the additional cost though it was not justifiable. The dominant part of this contract was established under the terms of cost, this shows that any risks involved were to be on any party’s obligations. Chen on his side had taken any additional cost of materials from the beginning and the same would have been expected of John. No risk was transferrable by terms and assertion of increase is tantamount to the abuse of prior discussions. c) What arguments could Chen use to support his claim for compensation for the hotel? Chen had set clear to John before the commencement of building that the purpose was to cater for accommodation. The term is a ground for risk awareness and therefore transferability. The underlying tenet of contract transactions had discussed this risk. The purpose was for John to take specific risk detailed in the contract. This is because, one party; Chen did not wish to have the risk and could easily pass it to John who was willing to take the terms of Chen in the event that completion failed at agreed dates. John was therefore to deal with the resulting consequences. The transfer of risk was a requirement that John would meet in this contract (Shen & Wu, 2005). Chen went ahead to consider the dire outcomes of failure of completion which ended up costing him stay a stay in a hotel for three weeks at a total cost of $3000. This, he had tried the best he can to avoid it and this enforces the transfer of hotel charges to John who failed to deliver an expected. The notice provides the steadfastness and surety of the deal. In this case, the mutual consent was reached without other elements like conditions for termination, special provisions and security agreement. d) What arguments could John use to support his claim to the $10,000 he wants Chen to pay? John, the respondent support for his claim of $10,000 may follow the total labor cost at the time of stoppage, further communication he made and his intent. To begin with, the terms of a contract may be considered before and during its delivery. The rise of labor cost is causation to unpredictable event. This concludes the failure to deliver, due to set cost in the contract, as a mistake when carrying out an action. John’s motives eliminate the possibility of failure and this can be proved by commencing the extension work. His actions followed mere emphasis on personal loss, which is a normal undertaking to an individual in order to avert the loss. His act lack wrongfulness of intent, thus it sufficiently shows that John acted negligently. As Nadelhoffer (2006), argues, though his action is in a way prohibited, there could have been set risks in the contract, the case is under the category in which no wrongfulness can be associated with it. The concept that Chen had reasons for strict prohibition and deadline cannot sorely make it offense at all. The failure is opposed to recklessly or intentionally act. Having the intent element unclear, failure to meet the deadline set was not in general, intentional. John’s actions cannot be a strict liability offense, but in a way, a breach of an understanding due to technical requirements. It is stated that, both parties had various consideration to personal commitments that in may have resulted to loss. Chen’s claims not to pay $10,000 to John are therefore, obscure to the judgment. To increase parties’ awareness, communication is a vital component of an effective contract. The defendant may also take a step, to proof there was no involved intent. His prior and further communication had revealed incomplete consent. Since the factors of cost were a major consideration, he promptly did as it was normally required. This shows that his intention was not to reach a risky decision and action. The case, where most judges require existence of both guilty mind and guilty act is absent as requirements. This deters severe consequences of common law. Both of the elements were absent at the same time and their occurrence was not sequentially. Since John successful took the necessary precautions, which involved informing on additional labor cost and the possible delay of completion, the delay was more of an omission to act, which may not justify Chen failure to pay. On the other hand, it was to his benefit to take precautions of a future case if Chen would not deliver the additional labor cost which may have led to delay. It is also confirmed that he later completed the work in July. This might mean that he was limited with the capital to deliver the work on time as labor cost rose. Lack of measures to continue the work was then not an intentional act, thus his act was not grossly negligent. In order to ensure that the work was in the victim’s best interest, some delivery of work had been provided. It is reasonable for defendant to close that, the work was done in Chen’s best interest, and it was only stopped once the process had harmful prospects to John. References Argyres, N., & Mayer, K. J. (2007). Contract Design as a Firm Capability: An Integration of Learning and Transaction Cost Perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1060-1077. Nadelhoffer, T. (2006). Bad acts, blameworthy agents, and intentional actions: Some problems for juror impartiality. Philosophical Explorations, 9(2), 203-219. Scott, R. E., & Triantis, G. G. (2005). Anticipating litigation in contract design. University of Virginia Legal Working Paper Series, 24. Shen, L. & Wu, Y. (2005). ”Risk Concession Model for Build/Operate/Transfer Contract Projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131(2), 211–220. Read More