The case consisted of Trapani Construction Company, Inc. as the plaintiff-appellee versus The Elliot Group, Inc. as the defendant-appellant. Trapani Construction Company worked with Elliot Group for some time, having spent more than $18 million in projects. Trapani gave Elliot Group a contract that required a signature, which was never signed. Later on, Trapani gave Elliot Group a letter detailing that both parties had failed to have an agreement given the previous contract they had drafted.

Trapani further put forth that he had already commenced work hence asked for the first payment. Mark Elliot agreed and proposed for changes to be made on the contract by Mike Elliot. The Elliot Group agreed and made the first payment to Trapani. Later on, Trapani brought in sub-contractors for work done, which Elliot Group was aware of. After the contract was through, Trapani raised concerns that Elliot Group did not fully pay her for the work she had done and asked for full payment. However, Elliot Group declined this request.

Issue

After the contract was through, Trapani raised concerns that Elliot Group did not fully pay her for the work she had done and asked for full payment. However, Elliot Group declined this request. Thus, Trapani sued the Elliot group for failing to fulfill their requirements concerning the contract.

Decision

The trial court ruled in favor of Trapani, who was to be paid the full amount of the remaining balance. However, the Elliot group appealed this decision citing that it did not accept Trapani’s offer to give construction services due to the draft contract that had not been signed (Hamman, 2018).

Reasoning

According to Trapani and Avery (2016), the contract was an implied contract hence contained all the elements of a contract where minds meet. Since the contract existed between the parties, it was thus enough evidence for the case. Thus, the plaintiff had to be compensated in full by the defendant for the work done despite the unsigned draft contract. Moreover, the defendant had not changed the contracts, insurance certificates and the documents detailing payment that had been sent by the plaintiff to identify the defendant as the owner of the project.

The defendant accepted the plaintiff’s work, and he did not order the plaintiff to stop working at any point. Thus, the court found that there was the presence of evidence to support the ruling by the trial court that an implied contract was there between the two parties. We thus affirm the judgement of the circuit court (Fabricant & Carrington, 2016).

Furthermore, it is “the duty is upon the agent who wishes to avoid liability to disclose the name or identity of his principal clearly and in such a manner as to bring actual notice to the other party.” Lankton-Ziegle-Terry & Associates, Inc. v. Griffin, 156 Ill. App. 3d 765, 767 (1987).

Thus, the agent who carried out the contract with the third party was the party liable for the contract. The principal-agent may sometimes not be aware that the third party agent is contracting on behalf of the agent.

“It is not sufficient that the third party has knowledge of facts and circumstances which would, if reasonably followed by inquiry, disclose the identity of the principal.” Lankton-Ziegle-Terry & Associates, Inc., 156 Ill. App.

Thus the conclusion to reject the defendant’s argument citing that letter written by Mark Elliot and the agreement showed that the defendant was contracting as the third party who is Arlington Market’s agent.

Case # 2: Symons v. Heaton (pg. 355)

Case Name: Symons v. Heaton

Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming

Key facts

Gary Plachek had known each other with Curtis Symons throughout their life until the demise of Plachek in 2010. Symons moved to Plachek’s house in mid-2001 to take care of him in which he did not pay rent while Plachek kept up with is his drinking habits. After Plachek died, Symons brought forth a creditor’s claim on Plachek’s estate of up to $259,200 as compensation for taking care of Plachek. However, Symon’s claims were denied by the estate’s co-administrators, Wayne R. Heaton and Timothy S. Tarver, which prompted Symons to put forward a case against the co-administrators on the grounds of implied-in-law contract. After that, a summary judgement was moved concerning the claims; hence the district court granting a motion. However, an appeal was made by Symons.

Issue

Was an implied-in-fact contract present? On evaluation, the court did not get any issue that was genuine to affirm the existence of an implied-in-fact contract. Did the trial court err in giving Symons summary judgement based on an implied-in-fact contract? We affirm the statement that the trial court erred.

Decision

The court agreed with the district court’s order which found no further question to the material fact in consistence with the law that Symon failed to meet the threshold of being entitled to the estate of the deceased.

Reasoning

It is seen that Symon relied on the word of mouth that was put forth by Plachek before his death to support his claims about the existence of an implied contract. The statements were discussed were made by Plachek while speaking with his friends affirming that he wished Symon to take over his properties once he passes on. True to this fact, Plachek’s friends testified about these statements to the court of law.

However, the court did not find any information in these statements to legally affirm that there was an implied-in-fact contract. Thus, this deposition against Symon made it clear that the court’s judgement was in favour of administration of the state. Moreover, there was a lack of material issue, which was genuine that could allow facts to be found on the existence of a contract that ensued.

Discussion.

According to Chadd, 2019, we review by evaluating the propriety of the judgement on the summary by applying equal standards as the District court used. The summary judgment is acceptable in case genuine issues are not present and the party moving the motion has a right to the judgement in front of the law.

“A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if it were proven, would establish or refute an essential element of a cause of action or a defense that the parties have asserted.” Christensen v. Carbon County, WY 135 (2004)

Symons argues that although there was express contact between him and Plachek, and that even though there was no testamentary proof, a bargained exchange of words existed to create an implied-in-fact contract. However, for an implied-in-fact contract be present between both parties:

“the conduct from which the inference is drawn must be sufficient to support the conclusion that the parties expressed a mutual manifestation of an intent to enter into an agreement.” Shaw versus Smith, P.2d 239, 435-436.

#Case 1 & 2: Critical Analysis and Case Comparison.

From cases 1 and 2, there are legal principles that arise. For instance, issues whether the contracts are legally enforceable, if there was a mutual agreement, presence of legality, valid expressed offer and capacity manifested itself (McCunn, 2016). Case 1 seemed easier to come to a ruling compared to case 2 because the implied contract in case 2 is lacking any contractual agreement unlike case 1 where, despite being not signed, a contractual agreement could be traced.

The cases bring out procedural issues and substantive issues. The procedural issues are seen in case 1 as they bring out legal concerns that are involved in a process to determine the rights of the parties involved in the contract. In case 2, both substantive and procedural issues were evident in telling us why the law deprived Symons Plachek’s estate and the reasons as to why Symons has been deprived of the estate.

After critically looking at the cases above, I affirm the decisions made by the courts. Both contracts came out as vague and were not specific on what each party was supposed to do; thus, the defendants came out being free of any legal responsibilities. Moreover, the implied and express contracts were not enforceable due to absence of proper written agreement and agreements by word of mouth. The two cases posed similarities, especially due to its procedural issues arising in the cases. The key legal terms in the cases included: implied contract (which referred to terms in a contract that are not expressed). Other legal terms included defendant and appellant.

The relevance of the cases

In case 1, the agreements carried are similar to those made in companies with its suppliers and customers. They exchange goods, services and money for a directly important item in return. However, these conditions that bind the parties involved in a contract may also be used to render an agreement invalid just as in case 1. When express contracts are not specific, the contract can move from being legal to create a breach of contract. Therefore, it is crucial to note that when conditions are implied with no written down the agreement, it can both be enforceable or unenforceable just as in express conditions (Cleveland and Knoblauch, 2018).

In case 2, an implied-in-fact contract arises just as in many organizations and individual circumstances where fraud is to be prevented from occurring. An example is when a buyer acquires a product from a trusted seller and assumes that the product will be free of any defects. However, the seller may know that the products have mechanical problems. An implied contract may be used so that the problems like those may be made known so that certain actions can be taken (Austen-Baker, 2017).

Business Law students should read cases 1 and 2 since they educate them on the importance of carrying out implied contracts that have substantive written or oral evidence. It also educates them on how to handle such cases in their future careers (Talesh, 2018).

Conclusion

From cases 1 and 2 above, it is clear that a Business Law student should have the proper knowledge to handle cases on the law of contract, and specifically implied contracts. In instances where an express contract is not present, an implied contract can as well be used. Contracts are seen to prevent individuals from being taken advantage of, yet they are on the right side of the law. Hence, contract law was efficient in serving justice in both case 1 and case 2.

References

Austen-Baker, R. (2017). Implied terms in English contract law. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chadd, J. R. (2019). Wyoming. ONE J, 5, 331.

Cleveland, K. A., & Knoblauch, D. J. (2018). Ensuring a return on your professional investment: The importance of a contract (part 1). The Nurse Practitioner, 43(10), 14-17.

Fabricant, M. C., & Carrington, T. (2016). The shifted paradigm: Forensic science’s overdue evolution from magic to law. Va. J. Crim. L., 4, 1.

Hamann, R. (2018). Post Hurricane Litigation: Private Liability Under Florida Law for Personal Injury, Loss of Life and Property Damage Resulting from Major Coastal Storms. Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, 4(1), 3.

McCunn, J. (2016). Belize It or Not: Implied Contract Terms in Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas. The Modern Law Review, 79(6), 1090-1101.

Talesh, S. A. (2018). Data breach, privacy, and cyber insurance: How insurance companies act as “compliance managers” for businesses. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(2), 417-440.

Trapani, C. C., & Avery, E. W. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,445,956. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.