Valid Enforceable Contract between Pat and Big Industry - Assignment Example

Running Head: CONTRACT LAW NAME: COURCE: INSTRUCTOR: DATE: A. Is there a valid enforceable contract between Pat and Big Industry? If so, what are the terms of the contract? What effect did the April 15 phone call between Pat and Hillary have on the contract terms? Contract Contracts for services are legal agreements between two or more parties, in which one side will agree to provide services mentioned in the contract for the sake of some fee, depending on the nature of the document sign by the parties. This agreement is usually governed by the common law. Computer program in the case of Pat and the Big Industry is not tangible or movable goods and could not be considered a good according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Therefore, if there is a contract between Pat and the Big Industry, then it is governed by the common law and UCC does not apply here. What validated the Contract? According to Monahan (2001), for parties to have a valid contract, there must be an understanding of what the contract is all about and there should be a mutual exchange of some kind of fee or something of value. In the case of Pat and Big Industry, there was mutual consent because Pat had agreed to offer services (four computer programs) to the Big Industry, and by signing the written contract between the two parties, this means Big Industry accepted the terms and conditions of Pat’s offer. And since there was a mutual exchange of some kind of fee or something of value (four computer programs in exchange for $25,000 in our case), hence valid consideration requirement was satisfied. Due to all these, we all agree that there was an offer (by Pat), acceptance (by Big Industry) and valid consideration and this will lead us to a conclusion that there was a valid contract between Pat and Big Industry. As we have seen above, the contract between Pat and Big Industry was only valid for 30 days and the services offered by Pat was to worth $25,000, the Statute of Frauds does not apply here since it was only to take Pat one month to complete his duties and not at least one year as required by Statute of Frauds to be applicable (see McGregor v. McGregor (1888), 21 Q.B.D. 424; Adams v. Union Cinemas Ltd., [I9391 3 All E.R. 136 (C.A.)). Also Statute of Frauds is not applicable here because the contract involved here is for services and not goods. According to the contract, sign by Pat and Hillary, the President of Big Industry, it stated that the work was to be completed within a month’s time and that was no later than May 1. Therefore, because of this, time is of essence here. And if Pat was to deliver his work to Big Industry after May 1, then this could be considered a violation of the terms of a contract, although under the common law, Pat should be given enough time to accomplish his work if time was not of the essence. April 15th call When Pat called on 15th of April saying “I won’t have it ready to deliver to you until at least May 8th maybe closer to May 15”, this will give Big Industry a chance to claim that Pat anticipatorily repudiated the contract. A contract is anticipatorily repudiated when one person of the party says he cannot finish or fulfill the terms by words or conduct by the deadline. In our case, the contract specified that work should perform by the 1st of May, but Pat told Big Industry that he would finish at least two programs by that time, and assured Big Industry that he would finish the other two in two weeks. And this shows that Pat did not really have an intention to not perform the contract, but to request for deadline extension. Therefore, Big Industry should not assume that the contract has been breached but could ask Pat if he was going to finish his duties. Since Big Industry may claim that, if Pat will not be in a position to finish his duties before May 1st; “no payment is due” should consider what Hillary, the president of Big Industry, said on 15th April while talking with Pat through the phone. When Hillary, said “I guess I’ll have to live with that” might have alert Pat, that Hillary, the president of the company, orally waive the conditions and Big Industry must pay Pat his due since the Statue of Frauds does not apply here. B. Can Pat prevail in a legal action against Big Industry for breach of contract? What defenses could Big Industry rely on in contract? Pat must show that there was a valid contract with Big Industry in order to win on a breach of contract claim. As we have seen above, a valid contract requires a mutual exchange of some kind of fee or something of value. As far as this case is concerned, it is stated that Pat and Big Industry entered into a written services contract so that Pat could deliver four software programs and he will be paid $25,000 if he beat the deadline of May 1. According to this case, the facts show that there was a valid offer made and it seems it was accepted by the other party. According to this statement, both parties have provided or fulfill that the three elements of contracts namely offer, acceptance, and valid consideration were made and possibly there was a valid contract between Pat and Big Industry. Under common law, a contract must state material terms with certainty. In order for an employment services contract to be valid, the main term needed here is the time frame. So in our case, the contract between Pat and Big Industry will not fail for lack of material terms since Big Industry had call for services to be provided for one month by Pat before it ended. Therefore, Pat will prevail in a legal action against Big Industry for breach of contract. The written agreement signed by Pat and Big Industry ’s President, Hillary, which stated “This is the complete and entire contract between the parties, and no modification of this contract shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by both parties.” Usually, at common law, any clauses which try to invalidate any kind of modifications and are not in writing are not valid. Therefore, Pat is more likely to prevail the case, since the contract has been modified. If in case Big Industry want to put that Pat’s failure to finish his duties by May 1 may lead to a breach contract, Pat should also argue that Big Industry had waived its right to that deadline on 15th April when Hillary said she would have to live Pat’s lateness. On the other hand, Big Industry might still argue that what Hillary said did not really establish an explicit waiver and this is nothing but a close situation and an ambiguity of the statement. Therefore the court might agree with Pat that the deadline was extended by Hillary and the contract was altered by her. C. What remedies might the parties be able to rely on in contract law? The only remedies that Pat is likely to get are legal remedies, or money damages. Pat will be compensated compensatory damages if he proved that Big Industry: Caused the damages That they were foreseeable, That the damages are certain and That they were unavoidable. These compensatory damages are designed or meant to place the victim (plaintiff) in the position they were expected to be, if they had accomplish the contract had been properly implemented by the defendant. And in order for Pat to obtain this, he must prove that Big Industry caused the damages in one way or the other (Eisenberg & Wells, 2006). Therefore, Pat has to prove that Big Industry’s actions caused him some kind of injury and he should be paid fully. Also, due to foreseeable facts, Pat had to experience some injuries caused by Big Industry for failing to pay him for delivering his services to Big Industry. Pat will prevail by suing the Big Industry for a price of $25,000 as was stated in the terms of the contract (see Masood v Zahoor [20 08] EWHC 1034 (C h) at [279] (Peter Smith J)). Last and not the least, Pat must also prove in the court of law that the damages he faced were inevitable and therefore must try to eliminate these damages if it is possible. As far as employment contract cases are concerned, it requires employees in some cases to look for other jobs. And because Pat can provide unique services, he had other opportunities somewhere else, Big Industry had waste his (Pat) time by offering a short time contract and he will be in a position to prove that his damages were unavoidable. Because of this, the court may, in one way or the other, wish to conclude that Pat may not have lose his other job opportunities somewhere else for Big Industry or stop working before making any contract with Big Industry. The court may also decide otherwise that, Pat’s damages be reduced since he cause some injuries to Big Industry for failing to meet the deadline when he was offered a job by Big Industry even though the statement does not mention any injury caused by Pat’s failure to beat the deadline (see Abbey Developments Ltd v PP Brickwork Ltd (2003) EWHC 1987). References Abbey Developments Ltd v PP Brickwork Ltd (2003) EWHC 1987). Eisenberg, T. & Wells, M.T., ( 2006). The Significant Association between Punitive and Compensatory Damages in Blockbuster Cases: A Methodological Primer. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 3(1), p.175-195. Fitzpatrick, P. (1992). The Mythology of Modern Law. (Routledge, Eds.)Contemporary Sociology (Vol. 22, p. 713). Routledge. Masood v Zahoor (20 08) EWHC 1034 (C h) at [279] (Peter Smith J) Monahan, G. (2001). Essential contract law.Journal of Neuroscience (Vol. 31, p. 170). Routledge. Schwartz, A., & Scott, R. E. (2003).Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law. The Yale Law Journal, 113(3), 541-619. Stone, R., (2011). The modern law of contract [9th Ed], Routledge. Read More