Contract between Comp-Sales Pty Ltd and Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd - Assignment Example

Business Law Student name: University Affiliation Case1 The law of contract often plays a crucial role in business transactions. Various people who enter into a contract require exercising the duties as per the terms of the contract. The elements of a contract determine the admissibility of the enforcement of a contract. Key among the elements of a contract is agreement. For a contract to be valid, the parties involved ought to reach an agreement on the way to enforce a contract. Breach of agreement may give that plaintiff options to either sue the other party for enforcement of the contract or to sue him or her for damages1. However, the plaintiff has a duty to proof that there was an agreement between the two parties before they entered into an agreement. From the case of Misty and Jackson, it is evident that the case falls under the law of contract. Misty and Jackson entered into a contract where Comp-Sales Pty Ltd was to supply computer software to Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd. Jackson and Misty entered into a contract on behalf of the two companies. The contract was reached orally in that there were no any written records for the contract. The contract was valid because all the elements of a contract were met. In particular, both parties were in agreement that Comp-Sales Pty Ltd to supply computer software to Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd at a $50,000 consideration. The date of enforcing the date was agreed, and each party made efforts to fulfill the contract. However, there is a breach of contract in that the consideration that was set at the time the two sides entered into the contract is yet to be paid in full. The two sides had agreed that various terms of the contract. In particular, the terms of the contract required that Comp-Sales Pty Ltd to supply computer software to Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd at a $50,000 consideration. The two parties were in agreement that the consideration of $50000 was sufficient for the contract to be complete. Misty did not object the terms of the contract. Consequently, each party had a duty to perform the duties that were required. Jackson had a duty to deliver the computer software in proper conditions and before the date of delivery expired. Misty also had a responsibility to pay the price as per the terms of the contract. However, Misty failed to meet her duties as per the terms of the contract. The fact that the contract was entered into orally, there was implied terms of the contract. Under the law of contract, a term is often referred to be implied whether expressly stated or not when the circumstances reveal that both parties were had clear intentions of including it in the contract2. It is evident from the case that both sides had intentions of including $50000 as the ultimate consideration for the contract. Thus, Mist had an obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract. Moreover, the fact that Misty argues that the reason for deducting $5000 was because of the family ties between her and Jackson implies that she was aware and in agreement that the consideration of the contract be $50000. Moreover, the intentions of the two parties were that Misty to pay $50000 for the delivery of computer software. If any person were to pass by when the two sides were agreeing to the terms of the contract, both sides could have agreed that the consideration of the contract was $50000.Thus, there was an implied term of a consideration being $50000. Just like many other contracts, the contract between Misty and Jackson had gaps in that some terms were not explicitly stated. It is often considered inefficient to try and negotiate every single detail of the contract of and thus, gaps are left for most contracts3. Implied terms then fill the gaps. In particular, the law often puts terms to fill the gaps. The terms that are set by the law to fill any gaps that exist in a contract are called imposed terms. However, these terms ought to meet some requirements. For instance, the terms should not be ambiguous and should not contradict any express terms of the contract. When the terms meet these requirements, then they should be implied both by law and fact. Misty and Jackson had not expressly agreed on the consideration for the computer software. However, Jackson had stated $50,000 to be the consideration that he was willing to receive the supply of the computer software. Misty did not object to the consideration stated by Jackson, and this may be the basis for arguing that there was an implied term that the consideration of the contract is $50,000. By use of the common law, it is evident that the implied term between the two parties is that the computer software will be delivered at a price of $50,000. The implied term in the agreement gives Jackson a legal option to sue for enforcement of the contract or compensation. The fact that Misty and Jackson are close relatives cannot be used to violate the terms of the contract. Jackson and Misty have a duty to fulfill their respective duties in the contract. Jackson has a duty to deliver the computer software in the quantity and quality agreed. The delivery should occur before or on the day the agreed day of delivery4. Jackson has a duty to inform Misty that he had delivered the goods, and this should be either orally or expressly. Misty has an obligation to pay the agreed price in full amount. The payment should be made on or before the agreed date to enforce the contract. However, from the case, it is evident that Misty breaches the terms of the contract by not paying the agreed amount in full. The argument that the discount of $5000 is due to the family ties that exists between the two is not justified. The law requires that the two parties to stick to the original agreement and the discount never featured in the agreement. Thus, Jackson has the option to sue Misty to compel her to fulfill the contract. He can do this through legal channels where he will explain the terms of the contract. The rules of a contract of law require that when one party fails to meet the terms of the contract, then the aggrieved party has an option to seek legal means of enforcing the contract. The aggrieved person also has an option of suing for compensation for the damages or loss that has been caused due to the failure of the other party to meet the terms of the contract. It is evident that Misty and Jackson entered into a contract that required Comp-Sales Pty Ltd to supply computer software to Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd at a $50,000 consideration. However, Misty fails to pay the consideration in full amount5. Every party is legally bound to meet the terms of the contract. Consequently, Jackson has a right to enforce the contract against Nu-Shoes Pty Ltd through legal means because there for a breach of the terms of the contract. Case2 The case illustrated implies that there is a contract between Chickens Galore and Brian Smith. It is evident that Chickens Galore offered an award to the customers. The restaurant was to issue coupons for each chicken dinner and any customers who were lucky to have their coupons redeemed for a scratch ticket; they were to be gifted with a Mazda CX-9. The contract had an offer, and it is evident that the customers were in agreement with the offer from the restaurant. The consideration of the contract was a Mazda CX-9. The customers were required to buy more chicken from the Restaurant to increase the chance of winning the Mazda CX-9. However, the contract that exists between the two parties was not expressed but rather implied in nature. The restaurant had made the offer through media and the fact that no customer had objected the offer implied that they were in agreement with the. Thus, the restaurant had a contract with its customers. Since the public was in agreement with the offer from the restaurant, each party had a duty to fulfill. The customers were required to buy chicken and receive coupons that they could take to the restaurant for redemption. The restaurant also had an obligation to meet the terms of the contract. In particular, it had a duty to give the consideration to any customer who was lucky. The requirement was that the customers were to buy chicken and return the coupons for redemption. Thus, any customer who had made frantic efforts to purchase the chicken from the restaurant and found a coupon that had the price after redemption had a right to claim the prize. The rules of the contract required that only customers who had bought the chicken were to be considered for the award. Any other person who had not bought chicken from the restaurant was not to be considered for the award even if the customer had a coupon that could win the award. The contract was between valid customers and the restaurant. Thus, Chickens Galore restaurant was not obliged to give Christian the price because the coupons he had were collected from a bin, and he never bought the chicken himself from the restaurant. Based on the terms of the contract, he was not qualified to receive the prize because he failed to meet the terms of the contract that required a customer to purchase chicken for him or her to attain the coupon that could be redeemed by the restaurant6. On the other hand, Brian Smith is justified in seeking the restaurant to give the consideration of the contract. Much as it is evident that the restaurant had intended to offer only one Mazda CX-9, it was not stated in the announcement. The announcement implied that any customer who could be lucky to redeem successfully his or her coupon was to be given a Mazda CX-9. Thus, there is an implied term that the restaurant had many Mazda CX-9 to offer to their customers. Consequently, all customers whose coupons were successfully redeemed had all reasons to sue the restaurant to fulfill the promise. However, the restaurant had argued that the mistake was as a result of a printing error. This argument should not be used as an excuse to deny the customers Mazda CX-9 because it was not their fault that the printing error occurred. They had fulfilled their contractual obligations, and the restaurant had a duty also to fulfill its contractual obligation. Moreover, the announcement that the restaurant could not honor the terms of the contract were made a little bit late in that the customers had already bought the chicken, and they were to present the coupons to the restaurant for the price. Thus, the announcement occurred after the customers had bought the chicken, and the terms of the initial contract were to be followed. Failure to make efforts to honor the terms of the contract will make the aggrieved party seek legal remedy for either contract enforcement or damages7. From the case given, it is evident that there was a contract between Chickens Galore and its customers. The terms of the contract were implied in nature, and each party was legally bound to fulfill the duties that fall under the contract. However, the restaurant has failed to meet its obligations and thus, Brian Smith has an option of suing the restaurant for damages. He should go to court to compel the restaurant to pay him for the loss he has in incurred after the restaurant failed to honor its promise. Bibliography Bercovitz, Janet EL, and Beverly B. Tyler. "Who I Am and How I Contract: The Effect of Contractors’ Roles on the Evolution of Contract Structure in University–Industry Research Agreements." Organization Science 25, no. 6 (2014): 1840-1859. Bordia, Sarbari, Prashant Bordia, and Simon Lloyd D. Restubog. "Promises from afar: a model of international student psychological contract in business education." Studies in Higher Education 40, no. 2 (2015): 212-232. Fried, Charles. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, 2015. Letseka, Moeketsi. "Ubuntu and justice as fairness." Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 9 (2014): 544. Pozgar, George D., and George D. Pozgar. Legal and ethical issues for health professionals. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2014. Schiller, Todd W., Kellen Donohue, Forrest Coward, and Michael D. Ernst. "Case studies and tools for contract specifications." In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 596-607. ACM, 2014. Westman, Jonas, and Mattias Nyberg. "Extending Contract theory with Safety Integrity Levels." In High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE), 2015 IEEE 16th International Symposium on, pp. 85-92. IEEE, 2015. Read More