Sam Stevens Case Study

Sam Stevens: Barking Machine Inventor In the case of Sam Stevens, he is bound in a valid contract with the chain store due to various elements, that are present in Sam and the chain store. There are elements of the contract that must be met before any contact is valid. According to Chapter 13 of Dynamic Business Law, the four elements of a contract are agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity and a legal object. The first two elements are meaning that there was a mutual agreement made with both parties and where all propositions are considered by both the offeror and the offeree. Contractual capacity is a slight bit different and means that both parties must be within the legal age limit, sound mind and legally able make the binding

Let’s look at the legal options the chain store has the option to peruse. The chain store can take the defendant to court and request a quasi-contract to be proposed. A quasi-contract is where one of the parties may not have intended to enter into the contract but was perceived that way by another party, and a court comes in to put the contract into writing in the best interest of both parties (“Quasi-Contract,”n.d.). In this case, the store owner would get the product, and Mr. Stevens would have an extended deadline to produce the product. Another option would be to take them to court claiming promissory estoppel. Furthermore, claim that due to a promise that the manager was depending on, that the defendant failed to keep, the company lost money and profits and should be held responsible even if the promisor claims that it should not be legal (“Promissory Estoppel,” 2010). Either one of these options the store would prevail on due to the nature of the contract and that it was for the transfer of good from Mr. Stevens to the

Stevens was also under a different contract. He was under a residential contract. Although residential contract can differ, a standard lease agreement makes sure of many things. Some of these things include that the tenant pays rent on time, doesn’t disturb their neighbors, the landlord fixes problems that need fixing and maintains the property, and makes sure the tenants are given a safe environment to live (“Landlord and Tenant Rights and Obligations,” n.d.). Therefore, according to the written letter that Mr. Stevens received he was in breach of contract, therefore, was able to be evicted. The eviction letter (that is mandatory to be sent in writing) stated that according to his signed contract business was not allowed to be conducted from his apartment (this protects the other tenants) and he had been conducting business from recently. Furthermore, Mr. Stevens was disturbing his neighbors, which is also a violation of any standard lease including the one he signed. The only defense that he currently has was a conversation that he had with his landlord that he considered a contract, but obviously, the landlord did not and the fact that this seemed to be the first notice of eviction that he had received. Most states and residential agreements require prior written notices before an eviction can occur. The landlord must make the tenant aware of the situation and allow them to resolve it before the eviction can take place unless otherwise noted in the lease