Contracts and Pledges
Contracts and Pledges
Order Instructions:
Assignment requested deadline May 3 by 8am. Please read below for information concerning assignment. Support responses with examples and use APA formatting in the paper. You may access the school’s website by logging into https://mycampus.southuniversity.edu/portal/server.pt
Contracts and Pledges
The Dunphy family owned an older home in Los Angeles that was in need of a new roof, painting, and some other cosmetic repairs. Phil Dunphy was a real estate agent and his wife, Claire, was a homemaker and worked part-time at the school where their youngest child, Luke, attended. One morning after dropping Luke off at school, Claire noticed roofers parked in front of her house and the neighbor’s house. She sent Phil a text asking if he had hired the roofers. When she learned that her husband had not hired the roofers, she assumed the roofers would be working on the house next door, and she decided to go shopping to avoid the noise.
Alex, the sixteen-year-old daughter, stayed home from school because she didn’t feel well. Alex is mature for her age and appears to be 20 or 21. When the foreman of the roofing crew rang the doorbell, Alex answered. The foreman said “We are here to work on your roof today, is that ok?” Alex replied, “Sure, as long as I don’t have to help you.” The foreman asked her to sign some paperwork, and she complied.
After Luke finished school for the day, Claire took Luke to his appointment with the psychologist, where Phil met them for the session. After the session, Claire, Phil, and Luke stopped for an early dinner. When the family arrived home, the roofers were just finishing and the foreman asked, “So Mr. and Mrs. LaFontaine, how does it look?” Phil replied that the roof looked great, but the LaFontaines lived next door. The foreman demanded payment and reminded Phil that the lady inside the house gave both verbal and written approval.
Later that evening while Phil was working on a real estate deal in another room, Claire was watching the Discovery channel when she saw a commercial by the ASCPA with a bunch of dogs with sad eyes in little cages. The spokeswoman pleaded for donations to help save the poor animals from all of the cruelty and neglect they suffered. Contributors would receive a picture of an animal they helped save along with a t-shirt. Claire picked up the phone and pledged $1,000 to save the dogs. The next morning, she regretted making the donation because she didn’t consult with her husband, who did not like dogs.
Based on the scenario, create a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document that includes the answers to the following questions:
•Was Alex’s signature on the paperwork considered a binding contract? Why or why not?
•Should the Dunphys be responsible for the roofing bill? Why or why not?
•Would it make a difference if the Dunphys were on vacation in Hawaii when the work was done? Why or why not?
•Will the charity be able to legally enforce the pledge Claire made? If so, why might the charity choose not to enforce a lawful pledge? If not, why not?
SAMPLE ANSWER
Contracts and Pledges
Based on the scenario of Dunphy’s house roofing the contract that Alex signed on the paperwork is not considered binding under any circumstances. A binding contract must contain an agreement and consideration from a viable source, in this case the owners of the house.
In terms of consideration factors like performance, terms and conditions and liability must be considered before binding any contract (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2012). However, in the case of Alex, the aforementioned were not taken into consideration despite having signed the contract. Additionally, the contract cannot be binding since the parties involved were not competent enough to be in a contractual agreement. A minor is not a valid party to enter into a binding agreement. Therefore, the contract signed by Alex is not binding since she was a minor and hence does not have the legal power to enter into a binding contract.
Dunphy is not responsible for the roofing bill since he did not take part or get involved in agreement that permitted the act to be officiated. The roofers did not take all the required precaution when signing the contract. It is normally required that before two parties come to a consensus, all the factor must be put into consideration and all the parties involved must receive full details before getting into the contract. Furthermore, Dunphy did not call for the roofing and had not connection or involvement in their act. He was not informed of the roofing despite being the owner of the houses who is the liable party to make a decision concerning the house. The roofers acted without consent from Mr. Dunphy and therefore cannot hold him reliable for their actions. The contract was not binding since it was signed by a minor and all the considerations were not taken into account (Griffith & Yanhui, 2015). Accordingly, Mr. Dunphy is not reliable or held accountable for paying the roofing bill.
The obligations and conditions of a contract require each party to fulfill all the terms and requirement of the contract adequately. Therefore in the event that one part is not in the vicinity a suitable and considerate candidate can act on their behalf. The person must equally have the legal power to sign the contract with the approval of the own. Without this approval, the contract is not considered binding. Therefore in this case, the contract would still not be considered binding if Dunphy was on vacation since the party involved had no legal power to sign the agreement. Additionally, the agreement cannot be official without the approval of the owner, either verbal or written. Accordingly, it would make no difference if Dunphy was on vacation in Hawaii.
The case of Claire’s donation to the charity is an example of a promissory estoppel, where a promisee undergoes detriment as a result of relying on a promise that the promisor fails to honor the promise (Ayotte & Hansmann, 2015). Claire who is the donor promises a donation to the non-profiting organization but later fails to comply with her promise. Given that Claire had made a charitable pledge and the charity had promised to give a t-shirt in exchange, the contract between Claire and the charity can be considered binding.
The charity can either decide to enforce the pledge or not, based on the promise of the donor. In this case, the charity can enforce the pledge on Claire to make the donation for the dog as required under charitable pledges.
References
Griffith, D. A., & Yanhui, Z. (2015). Contract Specificity, Contract Violation, and Relationship
Performance in International Buyer–Supplier Relationships. Journal of International Marketing, 23(3), 22-40. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=8e1b573b-f458-43da-92b9-f4b08e0fb52f%40sessionmgr4001&vid=0&hid=4110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=109261650&db=bth
Ayotte, K., & Hansmann, H. (2015). A nexus of contracts theory of legal entities. International
Review of Law & Economics, 421-12. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2014.10.001
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2012). LEGAL PROMISE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT. Wake
Forest Law Review, 47(4), 843-873 http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=41c93961-d357-4a9e-8cba-f7cc7dd657f9%40sessionmgr4005&vid=0&hid=4110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=84577012&db=bth
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
