-
Conclusion
A legal contract is an agreement between two parties, which helps in creating standards and enforceable obligations. Several elements should be present to ensure that the deal is binding between the two parties. They include the offer, acceptance, mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality.
II. Elements of a Contract
-
Rule: Elements of a Contract
In this case, there is a conflict of interest between DEF and ABC on the contract terms
The elements of the agreement are not well outlined but well defined. The first offer is that the company has to buy fandoghi shelled pistachios at $0.5 per pound, and this was to be delivered on date 15th of the month. The acceptance was made acceptable since Brodie made a counteroffer, although verbally. There was a notification that ABC was the buyer, according to Tiffany. The endorsement in this case is from Tiffany’s confession that Brodie sighed when he learned that he audibly sighed once he knew that the offer was from a competitor.
On the other hand, Chad had written confirmation for pistachios’ sales, sold by the brokers. The warranty had a list of the brokers’ names, addresses, and purchase orders to cement the information’s basis and legitimacy. The confirmation indicated that ABC did not intend to have any purchasing orders after receiving the written contract from DEF. The acceptance was not vivid as DEF did not issue a confirmation of the receipt according to the testimony brought about by Brodie. However, Tiffany continued communicating with the parties involved to ensure that the logistics and deliveries were finalized.
B. Analysis: Elements of a Contract
The contract was evident, and there was no breach of contract since the parties had a solid understanding of the needs and goals. However, the complaining party was not able to prove the four elements of a deal that existed. Chad and Tiffany working for ABC were evidently in line with the contract terms and used brokers to achieve their goals, although they notified Brodie. In this case, the consideration was contentious since the parties did not agree appropriately on the amount to be paid per pound. There was, therefore, no evidence of the separation of the contract from a gift since the price was not appropriately agreed upon (Savelyev, 2018). A gift is voluntary and gratuitous, based on transferring property from an individual to another where no something is meant to be returned. However, in the case of a gift, if there is a failure of return of a promise does not lead to a matter of a breach of contract, and there is no consideration of the security. Also, there was no acceptance of the offer unambiguously. The acceptance is expected to be in the form of words, deeds, or performance (Savelyev, 2018). The endorsement is expected to mirror the terms of the offer, and in this case, there was a contention of the price between the two companies. Therefore, rejection and counteroffer resulted in a breach of the contract.
III. The Statute of Frauds
-
Rule: The Statute of Frauds
The statutes of fraud require that specific contracts are supposed to be in writing to be enforceable. Contracts regarding the shows or lease of real property such as land are required 3be performed after one year after the contract’s date is required to be in writing. Collateral contracts include the promises made to guarantee the debt regarding another person’s duty (Savelyev, 2018). The other includes the promises made in consideration of the marriages, such as the prenuptial agreements. Lastly, it’s considering the sales of goods valued for over $500, making the contracts enforceable. However, the contracts are not enforceable if there is partial performance accepted. The court also has the mandate to make exceptions based on the parole evidence rule. In the case there are subsequent modifications or evidence of mistake, fraud, and misrepresentation, the court can define the contract as in violation of the contract rule.
- Analysis: The Statute of Frauds 458
The case resulting from this has various misappropriations that make the contract invalid and void due to a lack of concrete binding terms. The parties do not present the document’s signature; both ABC and DEF disagreed on the products’ prices, making the contract not agreeable on both ends. The lack of Promissory Estoppel, which lies on the brokers, makes the contracts under breach since the contract’s validity cannot be justified (Savelyev, 2018). The contract is expected to be in the form of writing signed against the parties in which the enforcement has been sought. Therefore, in this case, Brodie ought to have been contacted to seek verification of the contract, invoice as well as sales slips, or any combination of such proof of sales or procurement.
Also, the parole evidence rule can be used to justify the decisions made where there should be a providence of evidence before the negotiations, either oral or written. For this case, the agreement was oral, between Tiffany and Brodie, explaining the contract’s terms, although this should have been made alongside a written notification. Therefore, it is so that there should be integration on the determination of the parole evidence to define the contract integration on the broader scope of whether the final expression of the parties’ agreement should be made. In this case, there was no binding legality between the two parties, and therefore the terms of the contract were not legally binding between ABC and DEF parties. Also, most of the work done in the contract was verbal, and this can lack support, which is required under the court of law.
