Aubree Michel Bus 206 4/20/24 Project Three Contract Law The textbook, states that a contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty (Kubasek, 2023). In analyzing this particular scenario, it is evident that there are several contractual elements at play between The Friendly Dawg and the landlord Lou. A valid contract typically comprises four essential elements, offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. While the lease between The Friendly Dawg and the Lou the landlord involves consideration (the $500 monthly rent) and the intention to create legal relations, issues arise regarding the offer and acceptance. This signed lease explicitly describes the business as a pet supply store only, without mentioning the sale of live animals. Thus, the addition of live animal sales by The Friendly Dawg may constitute a material alteration to the original terms of the lease, potentially invalidating the lease agreement as it stands. However, if the landlord Lou implicitly accepted this change by not objecting during renovations and expressing excitement about this expansion, it could be construed as an acceptance of the modified terms. However, the situation with Sunshine Yoga complicates matters. While Jasmine's tenancy lacks a written lease, a verbal agreement between her and Lou the landlord may still constitute a valid contract, especially if she can prove the terms discussed in their meeting at the bar. However, the lack of a formal written agreement could make it challenging to determine the exact terms and obligations of their arrangement. In addition, Jasmine's claims of it being an
unsafe premise and having the disturbance from The Friendly Dawg's activities may give rise to a breach of quiet enjoyment, an implied covenant in the lease agreements. In this scenario, the dangerous snack incident further exacerbates the situation, potentially placing both parties in breach of their obligations under their leases. Ultimately, whether a valid contract still exists between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou depends on interpreting their actions, communications, and adherence to the terms outlined in the original lease agreement. Lou may have the right to enforce the terms of the original lease agreement, which explicitly defines the nature of The Friendly Dawg; 's business as a pet supply store only. Under contract law, a party has the right to enforce the terms of the valid agreement. You could argue that the addition of live animal sales constitutes a breach of the lease's terms, potentially justifying eviction or other remedies. Additionally, Lou may have an obligation to maintain the premises in a safe and habitable condition. However, Lou's refusal to address the concerns raised by The Friendly Dawg regarding the air conditioning system and the escape of the dangerous snack could expose him to liability for breach of this obligation. However, on the other hand, The Friendly Dawg may assert various claims and defenses to protect its interests. Firstly, The Friendly Dawg