Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked wit

Question

Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases. You will review the case studies and

compose a short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In each of the three reports, you will

focus on areas of law covered in this course.

Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord- tenant law.

Case Study Two

Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building where he has been working on his new invention, a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog

to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store that sells safety products wants to sell Sam’s product exclusively. Although Sam and the chain store never

signed a contract, Sam verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units. Sam comes home from work one day and finds two letters in his mailbox. One is an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn, telling him he has to be out of the apartment in 30 days because his barking device has been bothering the other tenants. It also states that Sam was not allowed to conduct a business from his apartment. Sam is angry because he specifically told Quinn that he was working on a new invention, and Quinn had wished him luck.

The second letter is from the chain store, demanding that Sam deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

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 in your analysis.

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.

Explanation / Answer

A. There was no valid contract between the chain store and sam. The coversation was offer made by sam to the chain store and the chain store neither showed acceptance not did they decide any consideration for the same, nor did they decide the terms etc. of the contract. The essentials of a valid contract are:_

in this case most of the elements like legal consideration, intention of the parties to create legal obligation is absent therefore there is no valid contract between the two.

B. The element is that ,

1) plaintiff furnished the goods to the defendant in expectation of reasonable consideration but the defendant failed to meet these considerations.

2) The defendant has accepted the offer knowingly and also obtained a benefit out of it.

3) The defendant obtained benefit from these goods and services and it is considered unfair because the plaintiff did not receive any compensation.

Having analysed these elements no claim would prevail by the chain store.

Elements of promissory estoppel are-

Having analysed the promissory estoppel elements none of the elemenst are fulfilled by the act of Sam and there was nothing detrimental done by the chain store at the stand of the promise made by SAM. Thus, the chain store does not have any claim over sam.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.