The law of contracts is significant to modern business operations. Notably, business environment involves relevant agreements between enterprises and clients. Such agreements need to be governed by the law of contracts to prevent any future disputes regarding company’s services to customers. In addition, the law provides useful guidelines that bind people’s agreements and accountability of the conducted business (Koffman, 2010). In accordance with this approach, the legal contracts provide legitimacy to business activities and prevent any future damages. The essay outlines significant elements of a legal contract in the case of Dr. Conrad Murray forensic evidence to provide contractual verdict to the case.
Elements of a Legal Contract from the Scenario
An offer is an essential part of a legal contract that is initiated between the business parties. Thus, in the local car dealership case, Stan Salesman comes with an offer of selling a car to both Jim and Laura. Stan takes both of these customers to the vehicle showroom, where they select their preferred vehicles. In fact, after a careful analysis, a blue four-door sedan car attracts both Jim and Laura. The customers agree to pay roughly $100 dollars to stay with this car for a day. According to the case, the offer was oral, as the act was conducted through word of mouth and both parties did not sign any document (Koffman, 2010). Furthermore, the offer was clear and definite to restrict any forms of uncertainties and ambiguities. For example, Stan Salesman assured both Jim and Laura that the company would refund their deposit.
Acceptance is another element of a legal contract that is demonstrated in the case. Both Jim and Laura agreed to purchase sedan cars after testing other vehicles in the showroom. Such an agreement from the offerees to be bound to the offer terms reveals an acceptance of the contract (Andrews, 2011). Because of such an agreement, both Jim and Laura accepted to pay Stan Salesman a deposit of $100 to test the car for a day. The legal perspective on this approach implied that the agreement between the seller and buyers came into existence at the subjective moment when their minds met (Andrews, 2011). In addition, the acceptance regarding the purchase of the sedan car was oral, as the parties did not sign the document. The offerees were also aware of car purchase and intended to accept the vehicle offer. Thereupon, both Jim and Laura could not have accepted the car offer if they did not have full information from Stan Salesman.
Capacity to contract is another crucial element of a legal agreement that emerges from the case. Both Jim and Laura had the mental capacity of understanding the requirements of a contract. Similarly, these clients had the ability and competence to enter into a contractual relationship of buying an automobile from a nearby car dealership. The fact that the buyers would use such a new car for work and school activities revealed they were of legal age and sound mind (Jones, 2013).
A valid contract holds the mutual obligation of both parties. Therefore, both legal parties should be bound to conduct their requirements (Jones, 2013). Failure to meet such obligations renders the law to treat the settlement as if none of the parties is obligated to perform. Stan Salesman has an obligation of selling cars to customers. He also ensures that such clients have met the down payments before the company delivers the car to them. Additionally, Stan provides that there is a mutual understanding between him and the buyers. Thus, he understood that both Jim and Stun would return to finalize the details of car purchase.
- 300 words/page
- Papers written from scratch
- Relevant and up-to-date sources
- Fully referenced materials
- Attractive discount system
- Strict confidentiality
- 24/7 customer support
Whether or not a Contract Existed for the Purchase of the Car
There was lack of contract for the acquisition of the car. The case reveals various components of the valid contracts such as an offer, acceptance, and legal capacity to contract. Moreover, the evidence shows the parties’ contractual capacity to contract and the legality of intention regarding purchasing the automobile (Koffman, 2010). However, as the case suggests, there was a lack of mutual agreement between the offeror and the offeree. Since both Jim and Laura could not meet $400 monthly payment, they were not going to purchase the car. Accordingly, they chose not to buy the automobile and requested their earlier $100 payment back. The decision caused disagreement as Stan had maintained that $100 was the down payment and was inclusive in the contract to buy the automobile. Perhaps, Jim and Laura did not understand the terms stipulated in the car offer, which led them to thinking that Stan tried to deceive them. Subsequently, the lack of mutual agreement and proper form between the parties explains the absence of a contract for the purchase of the car (Jones, 2013).
Facts to Support the Decision
The meaning of the agreement between the offeror and offeree is not apparent. The terms of contractual obligations are unclear and vague (Jones, 2013). Stan, the car dealer, did not indicate in the offer guidelines that the car deposit was an important part of the contract to purchase the automobile. Because of this failure, the buyers were offended and they felt that Stan Salesman wanted to fool them. Moreover, the contract lacked formal agreement, as depicted in the case (Koffman, 2010). Jim and Laura did not sign any kind of documents to formalize the contractual arrangements. The car dealer also did not provide a receipt to the buyers, which would have acted as a payment proof in case needed in future. Therefore, the contract did not exist for the purchase of the car.
Notably, there is mutual disagreement between the involved parties. Because both Jim and Laura could not meet a payment of $100, they were not in a position to purchase the automobile. Nevertheless, the car dealer did not accept the buyers’ decision of not buying the vehicle. Instead, he informed both Jim and Laura that the deposited money was inclusive of the contract to obtain the automobile. Such a response from the salesman created conflicts between the involved parties. Consequently, the contract depicted in car purchase scenario is invalid because it includes a mutual disagreement of the involved parties (Koffman, 2010).
In conclusion, contractual contracts are imperative to the contemporary business operations. As such, they resolve and prevent any future conflicts in modern business environments. Importantly, an offer, acceptance, legal capability to contract, and considerations are key components of a valid contract. Collective agreements and the contractual purpose are other essential elements. Therefore, the application of these contract elements will resolve negative situations in modern business.