100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 6 pages.
Although it was not a verbal acceptance, her act was consistent with an acceptance, as she takes the benefit offered. The consideration is also legally sufficient because a promise to do something was made by Mr. Shifty and bargained for, as the promise was made with the intent ofMary’s performance (sending her story). Although Mary was only 17, a minor, she still had the capacity to enter the contract between her and Mr. Shifty. Most minors are allowed to enter into acontract. Mary is a 17-year-old attending Florida Atlantic University, making her maturity level at that of a college freshman, rather than a 17-year-old. There were no illegal elements to the contract made between Mary and Mr. Shifty, making the contract one with legal purpose. The contract did not contact any fraudulent material, as there were no facts involved in the contract process. No writing is required for an implied in-fact contract. Desney v. Wilder states that once an idea is disclosed without a contract, it becomes free to use. Since the story was not shared during Mary and Mr. Shifty’s conversation and was only shared after the fact, it was disclosed after the formation of the contract. Desney V. Wilder also points out the fact that a promise to pay cannot be implied. This shows that the contractual agreement between Mary and Mr. Shifty dealt with laws of ideas, rather than compensation, as there was no contract for payment betweenthe two parties. (Conclusion) Since the contract between Mary and Mr. Shifty does not violate any elements of a valid contract, it can be inferred that there was an implied in-fact contract between the two. Mr. Shifty and his company failed to accept Mary’s story under nonfraudulent terms causing a breach of implied contract.
References Class MaterialsThe Confidential Relationship Theory of Constructive Trusts-An Exception to the Statute of Frauds, 29 Fordham L. Rev. 561 (1961). Available at: h p://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ r/vol29/iss3/6CHARLES G. HAINES, EFFORTS TO DEFINE UNFAIR COMPETITION, 29 Yale L.J. (1919). Available at: h p://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol29/iss1/5