Introduction To Business Law For Aforesaid Agreement Essay.

Is there an enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie?

Discuss about the Introduction to Business Law for Aforesaid Agreement.

Is there an enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie? (6 marks)

It is explicitly clear from the incidence that there is no enforceable contract between the two parties mentioned above. This is attributed by a lot of factors that will be enumerated below for this case. Looking at the case of Samantha and Julie, it is prevalent that the two have not entered a binding agreement or contract. In short, there agreement may be considered ‘gentlemen’s talk. The usage of the term ‘gentlemen’s talk’ is deliberate since there is no trace of legality for the agreement. It is common knowledge that the legal issues is characterized by paper work which  in turn implies that the two parties involved in such deal ought to append their signature to make the said matter viable for this incident. Moreover, any important deal ought to have at least one or two witness such that  incase of any default,  appropriate measures may be taken against the said person who has not honored the deal.[1]  There is a lot of complexities in this matter. First, either Samantha or Julie may decide not to honor the aforesaid agreement since they know that they have not fully committed themselves to some confines of law.  The law is categorical for the normal agreement which follows due process. However, for this case any party may violate the deal knowing well that it may be difficult for one to establish the evidence in the court of law. It is incumbent to note that the matter may not be essay for both the appellee and even appellant because word of mouth agreement has never been acknowledged or accepted in the court of law.  Deals that are always viable and legitimate are the ones that are papered down under the presence of a witness since there are valid or legitimate evidence which one would centrally peg themselves to.  Julie may too fail to provide the required food stuffs to Samantha since due to the reason explicated above.  If it happens that another  customer has come with good monetary quotation  higher than Samantha’s, there is higher likelihood of Julie changing her intention and opting to sell the cakes and sandwiches to the new customer knowing clearly that they have note entered full agreement following the established legal procedure which is conventionally known.    

Assuming there is an enforceable contract between Julie and Samantha, does Samantha need to pay $100 to Julie’s mother Martha?

If at all there is enforceable law between the two parties that is Samantha and Julie, it would imply that Samantha has to abide by the agreement. Ideally, if Samantha fails to abide by the deal it means that some punitive legal measures would be taken upon her. Looking at the matter objectively and legislatively, Samantha ought not to pay Julie’s mother since she was not there at the first place when the two were entering the agreement.  The contract has bound only two people that is Samantha and Julie.  Martha has just come in place due to some circumstances but she was not there in the deal. This implies that if Samantha fails to pay her, she would be right and would have adhered to the stipulated contract between her and Julie. Nevertheless, if Samantha pays Martha $100, she would have gone against the deal since this implies that she would automatically pay Julie the remaining amount which would be $400. According to the initial agreement, she was to pay $ 500 to Julie and not even a single proportion of that money was to be channeled to any party whatsoever.[2] Therefore, if Samantha wishes to give some part of the money to Marta who is Julie’s mother, she would be doing that on her own volition and that may be considered as philanthropic offer. It is incumbent to note that any enforceable law stands and does not care about the circumstances or situation at hand. It is not the prerogative of Samantha to judge the case that ensues Julie with her mother. Since that matter is beyond her, she needs to only sort out Julie as per the agreement and the rest of the procedure or matter would follow due course if Martha wishes to take her daughter Julie to the legal court to report her of the unfortunate thing she has done with her items at home. Julie has a right to sue Samantha upon violation of the contract. This simply means that if Julie fails to receive her whole sum amount of money that had been agreed, the person to be liable for this case is Samantha for having made her own decision to pay Martha who was not mentioned in the contract that the two had entered.

Is promissory estoppel relevant to Samantha’s dispute with Dave from ‘Outrageous Costumes’? (6 marks)

Promissory estoppel becomes relevant in this case if it established that the promise made by any party causes dire consequences or great loss to the promisee.   It is important to define this terms as we move on for better comprehension of this matter. Promisor is the person who ought to honor a given deal for having been granted a certain item. For this case, the promisor is Samantha. The promisee is the person to whom a given deal is directed to. For this case of Samantha and Dave, the promisee is Dave. According to promissory estoppel, a law becomes enforceable if it has been established that the said promise caused a great suffering and loss to the promisee.  Dave may take some legal measures against Samantha for having caused a great loss to his business. It is unequivocally clear that Samantha went to Dave’s premises requesting him to prepare some outfits for her team.  It is also clear that Dave had put his inte3ntionms clearly before proceeding with the work. Dave notified Samantha if he had any query before he could proceed with the work.  Dave went a notch higher by writing a message to Samantha who in turn did not respond about the issue of whether Dave ought to proceed or not.[3]  According to Dave, he was to just continue with the work since there was no objection from the client.  The law provides it clear for person of Dave’s caliber to take some immediate action against his client for the great loss he has suffered in the business. It is common knowledge that this loss has been caused by the negligence of the client.  The client was supposed to communicate in advance that they had gotten someone who would cater and provide the required Smurf suit for free rather than making Dave proceed with the work of preparing only to let him down on the verge of completion of the task.  For justice purpose, the promise made by the aforesaid party is viable since its repercussions are evident in one’s firm or organization. Similarly, Dave has consumed a lot of time preparing such outfits, he may decide to also sue Samantha for causing her waste a lot of time rather than engaging in productive business.[4] It is incumbent to state that time is money and if one makes someone lose such precious moment, that too is serious and some legal measures may be taken against such party.

Is Will entitled to two free tickets for helping set up for the school play? (5 mark)

Will is not entitled to the two free tickets as purported by Samantha. There is nowhere indicated that Will would be guaranteed for such trips. It may occur that Samantha is using that in order for her work to be expedited.  From the previous incidences of Samantha not honoring her deal with some people, the same scenario may be evident at this point. All the logistical pan for the event had already been organized, therefore it beats logic for Samantha to claim that she can provide some extra tickets to Will. There is no clear framework showing that Will would be granted such tickets. The promise between the two parties identified above may not be justifiable since there are a lot of technicalities involved in such commitments.   It is incumbent to note that any school has its own way of doing things or conducting their activities. However, it is common knowledge that there are pertinent issues that are solely the prerogative of the administration. As such   crucial information ought to have been put across by the principal of the school or any administrator.  It is explicitly clear that Samantha has countermanded the law and this would be deemed having violated the policy of the school by initiating something without the approval of the principal or management of the school.  One of the greatest setback of Samantha is lack of consultation.[5]  By consulting, Samantha may be in a position to know whether there may be available space to accommodate the extra people she has promised. Morevoker, who would cater for their fare? Is it the office or Samantha? Those are the key question s that needs to be fully looked at before taking any action that would cause the reputation of the school through Samantha’s move.