Business Contract Law Case Study

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-serviceBusiness Contract Law Case Review

Business Contract Law Case Analysis

 

 

            According to Clarkson, Miller, and Cross, the main parts of consideration in business contract law something of legally sufficient value given exchange for a promise and a bargained-for exchange (260). A promise to do something that one is not legally obligated to do is a valid consideration. The bargained-for exchange element means that the promisor or offeror must give or promise to give the item of value in return for the performance, promise, or promise of performance by the offeree (Clarkson et al. 262). Hence, in the given scenario, the basic elements of consideration are absent in the neighbor’s promise to help Joh reassemble the garage because there is nothing bargained for in exchange for another.

              Suppose the neighbor starts to help John but then realizes that putting the building back together will be much more work than dismantling it, the principle of contract law under which the neighbor might be allowed to ask for additional compensation is the principle of accord and satisfaction. However, if John's neighbor made his promise to help reassemble the garage at the time he and John were moving it,  John would be not able to enforce the promise since this would be a promise to do something that someone is already under a contractual duty to perform. Such promises to perform already pre-existing duties are not enforceable since they are not supported by sufficient consideration (Clarkson et al. 263). 

            The doctrine under which  John might seek to recover the profits he lost when he turned down the repair for one week is the doctrine of promissory estoppel. According to Clarkson et al., the doctrine of estoppel is one of the exceptions to the consideration requirement in contract law which covers "promises that induce detrimental reliance" (268). Under this doctrine, an individual who has substantially and reasonably relied on another person's promise to their detriment may be able to recover the losses suffered as a result of their reliance on the other party's promises even where there is no consideration. This equitable doctrine is used by courts to "enforce an otherwise unenforceable promise to avoid the injustice that would otherwise result” (Clarkson et al. 268). Hence, in this case, since John relied on the neighbor’s promise to help him reassemble and relying on this promise turned down several lucrative jobs, he is entitled to recover damages for this loss and the neighbor is estopped from claiming otherwise or denying the promise.             .........................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY