Project Three: Contract Law BUS-206 Business Law 1 Richard Gagne 04/16/2023 Nicholas Lesiak
When analyzing this scenario, we must consider the legal principles of the contract as well as the elements in which would make this contract valid. "Legal Principle: In determining whether parties intended to enter into a contract, the courts look at their objective words and behavior and do not try to figure out what they might have been secretly intending". (Kubasek et al., 2020 pg. 327) I thought it to be rather suspicious that there was no updated contract when Dave took over The Friendly Dawg when his father passed away. Had Lou made an agreement with Dave in writing stating that the store was to only be allowed to sell pet food and supplies maybe the issue of Dave refusing to pay rent would not have happened. Having a binding agreement that was thoroughly detailed could've saved Lou some heartache. We have to also consider the elements of the contract: intent, consideration, capacity, and legal object. Who is the offeror and who is the offeree? In this case, Lou would be the offeror and Dave Dawgs father would be the offeree. Second is consideration, with both parties agreeing that each of them would receive something of value such as the lease of property between Lou and Dave Dawg for $500 per month, this would be consideration. Another element would be the capacity of the people entering into the contract. In this situation, all we know of the capacity is that all parties were of legal age to enter the contract. Finally, we look at the legal object of the agreement. As I noted earlier, I thought that not drafting an updated lease agreement with Dave Dawg himself after his father had passed away was suspicious and problematic. After analyzing the entire scenario, we found out that Dave was consistent with his payments until the issues began and that Lou was aware and for lack of better words, encouraged the selling of live animals by telling an employee after the employee notified Lou of the live animal selling, "Very exciting! Good Luck!". This would be an example of the legal principle to enter the contract which would be cause for a binding agreement with both Lou and Dave.
Regarding the defense to the enforcement of the contract, I don't believe there is one. Although the original agreement for Friendly Dawg was to only sell pet supplies and the area in which Dave would later use to store live animals was meant for storage, I think that Lou should have addressed the situation immediately upon finding out rather than telling the employee, "Very exciting! Good Luck!". I believe that Lou has an obligation to maintain a functional building as far as the air conditioning and utilities are concerned and under no circumstances should that be compromised, especially when there are live animals staged in the area. I do however believe that The Friendly Dawg is in breach of