{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

H Adm 387 - Final Exam_Exam

H Adm 387 - Final Exam_Exam - Final Exam Question 1 Issue...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Final Exam H Adm 387 Question 1 Issue Does Kayla have a contract? Rule There are three elements that are required in order to have a valid contract: 1. Offer – The semantics matter in an offer, which refers to whatever the person says or writes down, not necessarily what their intention was. The offer expires when it is expressed in the contract. If it is not expressed, then it expires when a reasonable amount of time has passed as determined by an objective party. 2. Acceptance – The recipient of the offer must accept the offer as it is and in the same manner it is offered. Any deviation or counter-offer will constitute a rejection of the offer. The two parties must have mutual assent, meaning that they each understand what they are getting into. 3. Consideration – Finally, both parties must be giving up something to which that party is legally entitled to. Without consideration, the offer is merely a gift, not a contract. Application In this particular case, Dan offers Kayla $20,000 to obtain forgiveness from Kayla for one of his employees “slacking”, which resulted in the car being towed. First, there is definitely an offer, as Dan clearly sends Kayla a contract with his apologies and offers to pay Kayla for her troubles and does not specify an expiration for the contract, so whatever time that passed certainly would not be considered unreasonable by an objective party. Second, there is a clear acceptance of the offer in the exact manner that it was presented to Kayla. She writes to Dan to say “I accept”, clearly constituting acceptance. Finally, although the Dan offered Kayla the money, and Kayla accepted the money, she does not actually have a legally enforceable contract. While Dan is giving up $20,000 to clear his conscience, Kayla is not giving up anything to which she is legally entitled. The trouble that Kayla “went through” is not a legally enforceable element of consideration, so rather than being a contract, Dan’s offer of $20,000 is merely a gift. And a generous one at that… Conclusion In conclusion, although Dan offered Kayla $20,000 for the trouble of having her car towed, Kayla did not give up anything to which she was legally entitled to, which constitutes Dan’s offer as a gift and not a contract, so the two parties did not have a valid contract. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Final Exam H Adm 387 Issue Is Kayla still entitled to some amount of damages despite the fact that the two parties did not have all the necessary elements of a valid contract? Rule When an arrangement does not have all the required elements of a valid contract, namely consideration, the offeree may still be entitled to damages if the plaintiff can prove the four necessary elements to constitute Promissory Estoppel: 1. The offeror must have made a promise.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}