BUS-206 Project Three: Contract Law
BUS-206 Project Three: Contract Law
Danielle Thibodeau
Southern New Hampshire University
BUS-206 Project Three: Contract Law
When reviewing the case scenario between landlord Lou, The Friendly Dawg owned by
Dave Dawg, and Sunshine Yoga owned by Jasmine we must analyze how the contractual
relationship began between each party, as well as each party's potential rights, claims,
obligations, defenses, and remedies to determine a resolution to the disagreements between the
parties.
Landlord Lou has a contract entered with Dave's father the original owner of The
Friendly Dawg. For a contract to be valid it must contain four elements, the offer, an agreement.
an acceptance, and a consideration. (Kubasek et al., 2020, p. 325) Upon analysis of the scenario
the four elements of a valid contract appeared between Dave's father and Lou. The agreement
and acceptance of the consideration of $500 per month rent to be paid on time in exchange for
rental rights to the pet store location prior to renovations that Dave made. These terms of the
contract were signed with no mention about the selling of live animals or providing future
updates to the space.
After the passing of Dave's father and Dave taking over business control of The Friendly
Dawg, the original contract was no longer valid and voidable at the discretion of landlord Lou
At that time both parties Dave Dawg and landlord Lou should have agreed to revise the terms of
the contract which evidence of such contract is not present, nor a verbal agreement was
established. However, as Lou decided not to terminate the lease this same contract or "implied
contract" between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou remained by Dave paying rent on time
and being a good tenant, and Lou who did not choose to terminate the rental agreement with The
BUS-206 Project Three: Contract Law
Friendly Dawg. Therefore, the potential rights of The Friendly Dawg are entitled to are the
same terms of the original lease signed by Dave's father. The Friendly Dawg is entitled to
maintenance and good property repair of the original property listed in the terms of the contract
The Friendly Dawg is not entitled to maintenance and property repair for the additional
expansion space as it was not an included area in the original contract. Dave's defense of
withholding rent pending the addition of air-conditioning to the expanded space is not a valid
argument as it was not made as an amendment to the current contract terms. The Friendly Dawg
also did not have rights to renovations of the expanded space and had an obligation to seek
approval of the expansion to the area from landlord Lou. Withholding rent and making
unauthorized renovations to the property could lead to grounds for landlord Lou to evict Dave.
As a remedy The Friendly Dawg should remit the withheld rent and seek a revised contract
offering additional rent monthly in exchange for the addition to the air-conditioning being added
to the expanded space, as well includ