• Home
  • Southern New Hampshire University
  • Business Law I BUS206
  • Business Law Case Study

Business Law Case Study

Logan Donaldson Business Law Case Study 2 04/05/2020 The four required elements required to establish a valid contract, in this case between Samand the Chain Store are, offer acceptance, the intention of legal consequences and consideration. (Kubasek 2019). The first element is covered when sam offered to provide the store manager with a product and a discussed amount, this being a gray area because his offer lacked a deadline on delivery. The second aspect being acceptance was questionable as well since the facts of the case only imply that the store manager agreed to the delivery. The next aspect being the intention of legal consequence is again, shaky because they were capable of making a legal decision, but there is no indication that the parties actually intended to enter a legally binding contract. The final element, consideration, requires that a promise must be exchanged for adequate consideration. (Kubasek 2019). Sam offered consideration when he promised to deliver the number of units, but the store manager did not offer a deposit or promise to pay or any other considerations. With everything taken into consideration, there is no valid contract between Sam and the Chain store. Even if there is not a valid legal contract between Sam and the Chain Store, there may still be a quasi-contract or elements of what is called promissory estoppel. A quasi-contract is a legally binding substitute agreement created by the courts between two parties who do not have an actual contract, but in the interest of equity and fairness imposes a contractual obligation between them (Kubasek 2019). A major element of a quasi-contract is unjust enrichment. Here, it doesn't look like Sam's failure to deliver immediately provided him with an unfair advantage. At the same time, it is apparent that the Chain Store was not unjustly damaged by Sam's failure to deliver immediately. Accordingly, it is not likely that the Chain Store would prevail on a claim of quasi-contract against Sam. A promissory estoppel is a legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law when the promisor (Sam) makes a promise to the promise (Chain Store) who relies on it to their detriment. Based on the same assumption that the Chain Store was not apparently unjustly damaged, the concept of promissory estoppel would also not likely apply. Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment - The rights and obligations of both the tenant and landlord depend upon their contract. Standard residential lease agreements usually include a covenant of quiet enjoyment which ensures a landlord or tenant against a disturbance of their right to possess or use property (Kubasek 2019). Some of the facts may support that Sam is in breach of the rental contract since it is apparent that the noise from his barking Machine was disturbing the neighbors, which could be a breach of the landlord's covenant of quiet enjoyment as it relates to the other apartment tenant's rights. In that case, Sam could be evicted. Conducting a Business -- Unless otherwise specified, most standard residential lease