Antaisha Young Business Law Dec 10 2023 Contract between The Friendly Dog and Landlord Lou There are four elements that must be met in order to have a valid contract according to the reading (Kubasek, 2021). To be considered a valid contract, it must include the following: agreement, consideration, legal object, and parties with contractual capacity. "The Restatement (Second) of Contracts defines a contract as "a promise or 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. Another way to think of a contract is as a set of legally enforceable promises" (Kubasek, 2021). The contract between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou does exist as Dave Dawg, who is the son of the original business owner, took possession of the business once his father passed away two years ago. The original contract signed with Dave's father that has since been kept as the same agreement by Dave, who sent $500.00 to Lou monthly. They had a lease agreement written that specifically stated that this business is a pet supply store but nothing stating that they would be selling live animals. The elements conclude that there was an offer by Dave, which was accepted by landlord Lou. Contractual capacity does exist because both parties did enter into a legally binding agreement and according to the scenario it is assumed that Dave Dawgs is of legal age and can assume responsibility for the legal binding agreement. As I have studied this case, I learned that Dave Dawgs has a bilateral contract with Landlord Lou and he breached the agreement, because he never asked to revise the agreement to
include live animals. After his fathers passing it is assumed that by Dave possessing and operating The Friendly Dawg he understood the lease agreement. Dave decided to expand the business and started offering live fish and fish tanks. He then continued to expand by installing animal kennels and cages in what was previously the storage area. This area now stored birds, cats, snakes and dogs. After construction had begun, Lou wondered into the store inquiring about the renovations from an employee in which his response was "Very exciting, and good luck." This would mean Lou acknowledged the new renovations without the understanding of the renovation plans included live animals. Since there had never been talk or even acknowledgement from Dave about live animals, Lou could have concluded it was an expansion for more pet supplies instead of live animals. Had Dave discussed the plans with Lou about the renovations, Dave could have had the opportunity to decline or deny the plans citing the original rental agreement. If Dave had communicated his plans to the landlord, he could have had the chance to negotiate. By Dave withholding the rent, he is breeching the contract and can face a constructive eviction under the Landlord-Tennant Agreement. In problem solving negotiations, Dave Dawgs would have to agree to give up