Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Scenario 1 Foodmart, Incorporated is a retail grocery store chain based in Any State, USA. Foodmart, Inc.

contracted Masterpiece Construction for what was supposed to be a simple renovation in the Main Street in My Town location. Masterpiece could not complete the renovation because of an increase in new contracts. Because Masterpiece could not complete the renovations within the six-month deadline, they subcontracted the job to another company, Build Them to Fall Construction. Foodmart was unaware of the subcontract and when they realized that the quality of work was poorly executed they petitioned the court for an injunction and sue Masterpiece for breach of contract and specific performance. A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. When a contract is signed there are certain covenants or conditions listed and they must be met. If one of the parties does not perform as promised there is a breach in contract. The breach in the contract does give the other party the right to sue (Cheeseman, 2010). Masterpiece can argue that the contract was not specific to whether a subcontractor could have performed the renovation. Many contractors delegate duties to subcontractors, this is a common practice. Masterpiece should focus on the renovations as completed within the time allowed. Nonetheless, the defense could be complicated because the renovations were completed poorly. The defendant can claim that they were unable to perform; therefore, the traditional contract should be discharged by mutual agreement of the parties. The parties to a contract may agree to settle a contract dispute through an accord and satisfaction. Accord and satisfaction is an agreement whereby the parties agree to accept something different in satisfaction of the original contract known as an accord. The performance is called of an accord is called a satisfaction (Cheeseman, p. 183). This might be a solution because it does not discharge the original contract.

Masterpiece will probably be responsible for the job that was poorly done and will be responsible for fixing anything that Foodmart Inc. is not satisfied with (Cheeseman, 2010).

Scenario 2

Brian McDonald had an incredible train collection it consisted of rare and one-of-a-kind trains. One day whole visiting another hobbyist Harry, Brian told him that when he retired from his job he would sell his trains and spend his life traveling on real trains. Brian once told Harry that he was the only person who he would sell his trains to because he know Harry would take care and appreciate as much as he did. Harry was excited and said he looked forward to the day when he could buy the trains. Harry spent the next two years and a large portion of his savings building a new 2,000-square foot room in his home to make room for his new collection of trains. Harry told Brian that he was building a new room but Brian did not reply and simply smiled. When Brian retired he sold his collection not to Brian but to a neighbor, James. Harry was furious and hurt so he sued Brian. Unfortunately, Harry did not have Brian sign any contract to prove that Brian had an obligation to sell the trains to him. According to the Cheeseman (2010) a contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty (p. 156). The problem is that no one made an offer, and a contract is created if an offer is made and accepted. Therefore, Harry would not have a case against Brian based on spoken contract because no terms were agreed upon. Harry could also argue that because he built the addition to his house and borrowed money from his aunt based on the promise from Brian. Harry suing Brian for his monetary losses is a

lost cause even under the equitable claim of promissory estoppel. Again, in the eyes of the law Brian did not promise anything to Harry (Cheeseman, 2010).

Reference Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.