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 of
Mary’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 a
contract. 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 between
the 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 Materials
The 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/iss3/6
CHARLES G. HAINES, EFFORTS TO DEFINE UNFAIR COMPETITION, 29 Yale L.J.
(1919). Available at: h p://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol29/iss1/5
