Contract Law Analysis
April 15, 2022 Mariah Kiefer
After reading and reviewing the scenario the we were given, I would have to say that I
believe that there are some elements present of what would be considered a valid contract that
were made between The Friendly Dawg and their landlord Lou. Now to discuss the elements that
were involved the first element noticed that there is a contract, is that of intent, in this situation
Lou would be the offerer and Dave Dawgs deceased father was the original offeree. The second
element that need to be taken into account is that of consideration, there was a lease agreement
that was made between The Friendly Dawg and the landlord Lou. The lease that was signed
agreed that The Friendly Dawg is allowed to use the space that Lou was renting out at a price of
$500 per month, the reason this is considered consideration is because both The Friendly Dawg
and Lou are getting something that is worth value on each end. Consideration is defined as, "The
bargained-for exchange; what each party gets in exchange for his or her promise under a
contract." (Kubasek et al., 2019) The third element would the competency of all parties that are
present when getting involved in a contract. Dave Dawgs father as well as Lou the landlord were
both of a legal age to get involved into a contract and there was no other evidence shown as to
why there would be any other kinds of issues that would be involved when signing into a
contract that would allow Dave Dawgs father to rent out this space. The final element that was
present was the lease that was signed by Dave Dawgs father and Lou, allowing him to rent out
the space that was available at the time and converting it into a pet supply store now known as
The Friendly Dawg. When looking back through the elements that I have provided, I would have
to say that there is in fact a contract that still exists between The Friendly Dawg and the landlord
of the space, Lou.
As there is no way for me to review the original contract that was signed by The Friendly
Dawg and the landlord Lou, I would have to say that I don't think there is any sort of defense to
how the contract is enforced. Because the space is being rented Lou the landlord has a sense of
responsibility when it comes to the space that he is renting out. However, from what I have read
the space that The Friendly Dawg rented as originally supposed to be used as a space for them to
sell their pet supply products and was not designed to be suitable to "house" live animals.
Because of The Friendly Dawg now "housing" live animals this in terms can be ruled as a breach
in their original agreement, simply because in the original agreement that was made and signed
the space rente