Running Head: "STEVENS V. QUINN
BUS 206: Milestone Two Case Study
"Stevens v. Quinn'
Matt Culbertson
Southern New Hampshire University
"STEVENS V. QUINN
A. Analyze the elements of this case to determine whether a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. Support your response by identifying the elements of a valid contract.
At first glance, it appears as though there is an oral agreement/contract between Stevens
and the chain store. In order to verify that, let's look at the four elements of a contract:
agreement, consideration, contractual competency, and legal object. First, there needs to be an
agreement. In this case, the agreement is from the chain store offering to sell Sam's product
exclusively. The next element is consideration. The consideration here is in exchange for selling
his product in their store, Sam will ship them 1,000 units (it is of note that there was no timeline
given in this case study, not is there any financial advance/compensation). The third element is
contractual competency, which is basically that both parties posses the mental capacity/well-
being to establish and execute a contract -- which is evident herein. Finally, in order to be a valid
contract, there must be legal object. Given the information available, there does not appear to be
any legal object, as all that has been established was a verbal agreement took place, but there is
no evidence of any compensation, advance payment, nor any written correspondence (email or
otherwise) prior to the chain store's letter of demand. Since that vital piece of information is
missing, I must judge that this is not a valid contract.
B. Assume there is not a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Analyze the elements of a quasi-contract and a promissory estoppel to determine whether the chain store would prevail on a claim of either. Why or why not? Include support for your analysis.
A quasi-contract must be imposed by the court. In order for the court to make that
judgement, they would have to prove that Sam received some type of compensation. For
instance, if the chain store had advanced Sam money to build and ship 1,000 units, then the court
would likely require him to deliver the product. Since it is not mentioned in the case study, we
"STEVENS V. QUINN
have to assume that Sam benefitted in no way, thus a quasi-contract ruling could not be imposed
To determine if a promissory estoppel exists, we have to examine whether the contract was
bilateral or unilateral. Bilateral is basically a promise for a promise, and unilateral is a promise
for an act. In this case, the chain store promised to sell the product in the case that Sam acted by
producing/shipping 1,000 units. In other words, the chain store basically said, "when you
complete your part, we'll do ours." In a promissory estoppel, the promisor (chain store) would
have to know that Sam relied on their offer, Sam would have to shown reliance, and in order to