Contract between Samantha and Julie - Assignment Example

Contract laws Name Date Course Part 1 Issue The issue is whether there is an enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie. This is after Samantha sent Julie a text message indicates that she can go ahead with the preparation of cakes and sandwiches for the school event. Julie is 16 years old and had indicated that her prices will $ 5 per person to $ 100. Rule According to the common law, a contract is valid and enforceable when there is an offer, acceptance and intention to create legal relations1. A contract becomes valid when the offeree accepts the offer made by the offer under the mentioned terms and conditions. In order for the contract to be binding, the offeree must communicate with the offeror. In the Case of Gibson v Manchester City Council, it was highlighted that the court can reexamine the presence of offer and acceptable to determine the enforceability2. According to the common law, a minor is a person below the age of 18 years. A contract with a minor is enforceable when it is beneficial to them and aimed at acquiring essential items for living or employment3. This was highlighted in the case of Peters v Fleming where an essential item was required4. Application An offer was made to Julie by Samantha to for the preparation of sandwiches and cakes for 100 people. Julie in turn indicates that she will be able to do so at a price of $ 5 per person. This is therefore an indication that an offer was made and conditions established by the offeree. Communication was established between the two parties as Samantha sent Julie a text message giving her a go ahead with the preparation. However, Julie had indicated that a Facebook message should be sent in order for her to proceed with the preparations. A text message on the phone is still reasonable communication as Julie can receive the information the same way if Facebook had been used. Julie is 16 years old which makes her a minor. However, the contract is aimed at benefiting her financially as she will be able to earn $ 500. Julie has also been conducting the same business as she has a Facebook page that she uses to take her orders. Samantha has to pay for the products same way as she would have done if she had entered into a contract with another party or adult. Conclusion In conclusion, the contract between Samantha and Julie is enforceable. This is because an offer was made and it was accepted with communication made using a text message. Although Julie is a minor, she will benefit from the contract and there is no exploitation of any way. Part 2 Issue The issue is whether Samantha needs to pay Julie’s Mother $ 100 if the contract is enforceable. This is after Julie used the ingredients in her parent’s household fridge and cupboard and refused to pay her mother back for the ingredients. Rule According to the doctrine of privity of contract in the common law, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to the contract5. It is only the parties to the contract that can sue or claim for damages or rights resulting from the contract. This was highlighted in the case of Price v Easton6. A third party is not entitled to the rights under the contract but they may take action in the event of breach to duty to care. This was established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson7. Application The enforceable contract for the preparation of cakes and sandwiches is between Samantha and Julie. This means that Julie’s mother is a third party to the contract. During the implementation of the contract, Samantha was not in any way in contact with Julie’s Mother. This is an indication that she was not aware of any dealings between Julie and her mother. Julie is a minor and is therefore not in breach of any duty to care despite using ingredients from her parent’s fridge and cupboard. Conclusion Samantha does not need to pay Julie’s mother $ 100 as she is not privy to the contract. Julie’s Mother is a third party and was not featured during the implementation of the contract and can therefore not benefit from it directly. Part 3 Issue The issue is whether promissory estoppels are relevant to Samantha’s dispute with Dave from ‘Outrageous Costumes’. This is after Samantha contacted Dave regarding the manufacture of three costumes. Dave initially indicated that the materials for the customers were expensive and Samantha gave him a go ahead to look for the material. Samantha later ignored the message from Dave which indicated that he will go ahead with the process unless he hears from her. She ignored the message as another party has agreed to make the costumes for free. Samantha later cancels the contract when Dave has almost completed the process and cannot reuse the material. Rule According to the contract law, promissory estoppels are a doctrine that may be used to prevent a person from relying on certain rights or set of facts in certain situations. An estoppel is made when there is a false representation of facts with the knowledge that it is likely to be acted upon. In reliance to such facts may also cause detriment to a party. According to the English common law, promissory estoppel involves a doctrine that prevents a party from acting in a certain manner as the first party promised not to while the second party relied and acted upon the promise8. This was highlighted in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd9. Promissory estoppels requires unequivocal promise by words or conduct, change in position as a result of the promise and inequity if the promisor were to go back on the promise. Application Samantha wrote to Dave allowing him to go ahead with the process of ordering the material for the costume. This is an indication that there was a promise by word that Samantha was in need of the costumes. The message sent by Dave after purchasing the material indicated that he will go ahead with the work unless he hears back from her. This message was ignored by Samantha with the knowledge that it will cause detriment to Dave. Samantha changes her position after obtain an offer of free costumes. She calls to cancel the order two days before the festival after Dave is about to complete the works. This is an action that is likely to cause inequity as Dave would suffer losses. Dave had ordered the materials which was expensive and special and had also invested his time in making the costumes. Samantha on the other hand would not suffer any losses since she had not paid anything for the materials and had cancelled the contract. Conclusion Promissory estoppel is relevant to Samantha’s dispute with Dave. All the conditions for promissory estoppel have been met based on the actions of Samantha. Part 4 Issue The issue is whether Will is entitled for two free tickets after helping out in the set up for the school play. This is after he was among the first 10 people to arrive by 12.00pm and assist. Samantha had indicated that the first 10 parents who arrive by 12.00pm will be provided with two free tickets. Rules According to the common law, a statement or promise that causes another to act based on its reliance is considered binding10. Such a statement or promise is enforceable and it is treated as a complete contract. A promise is also considered a manifestation of the intent to act and it is therefore considered a legally binding agreement. The failure to fulfill a promise under the common law is considered a breach of contract. This was highlighted in the case of Campbell v Robinson11. When a promise is conditional, the condition must be performed before it becomes of binding force12. Application The statement that Samantha made in her email to the parents constitutes to a promise. Will whose brother was to perform in the play decided to be a volunteer based on the promise in order to obtain the ticket. However, the email was addresses to the parents and it specifically indicated that the first 10 parents who arrive by 12.00 pm and help out will receive the tickets. This means that in order to obtain the free tickets, certain conditions have to be met including being a parent, arriving by 12.00 pm and being among the first 10. Will fulfilled some of the conditions but not all the conditions. He arrived by 12.00 pm and was among the first ten people. However, he was not a parent which was one of the main requirements. Conclusion Will is not entitled for two free tickets as he is not a parent which is one of the main conditions that has to be fulfilled in order for the contract to be fulfilled. There was misinterpretation of the promise by Will. References Articles Andrews, Neil. Sources and General Principles of English Contract Law. Arbitration and Contract Law. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 165-175. Burton, Steven J. Principles of Contract Law. Uiowa.edu, 2012. Cases Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] UKHL 6 Peters v Fleming 329 Mo. 870 (1840) Price v Easton [1833] 110 ER 518 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 Campbell v Robinson 398 S.C. 12, 726 S.E. 2d 221 Read More