- IS THERE ANY ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT BETWEEN JENNIFER AND TIMMY?
Issue
The issue within the story, there is a question whether or not Timmy and Jenifer had entered into an enforceable contract and how the law regarding the same would apply in this case.
Rule
According to the LAW Dictionary, “Enforceable contract refers to a particular agreement which obligates one of the parties to do or even not do something particular in exchange for something of value or consideration.” [1]
Analysis
Firstly, Timmy and Jennifer had not entered into any contract. The only thing Jennifer had done was to call Timmy and inquire about booking him as a DJ at her grandparents’ anniversary on the 4th of April and Timmy sending her his brochure for his various services at different rates.
Also, there was no legal document that was signed by both parties to obligate either of them to do or not do something. That refers to Timmy showing up for the party as a DJ, play some Latin music, and entertain people. Particularly his client’s grandparents for longer than four hours, in exchange for a consideration something of value that would be the agreed amount of money for the 4 hours for his services and $50 for each extra hour he spends there.
Conclusion
The answer to this issue is that Jennifer is not liable for not holding up her end of the deal. The reason for this is that there was no legal contract that would obligate or compel any of the parties to carry out the tasks as agreed. A brochure cannot be used as a contract between the two. Also, Jennifer is not liable for any amount of time or money that may have been spent by Timmy in preparation for the birthday. She cannot be held responsible and legally forced to compensate the online DJ for the same if she fails to come through. It would have been the same if Timmy was the one who did not show up and Jennifer having being disappointed for not turning up.
- Promissory Estoppel relevance to the Dispute between Stevie from the “Yummy Cakes” and Jennifer.
Issue
The problem in the case of Stevie from the “Yummy Cakes” and Jennifer, who was to be his client, is whether or not the Promissory Estoppel law or policy would be relevant in their case. Jennifer had visited the cake store and asked for a Latin Cake, and Stevie provides her with one of the selections in which the former had agreed to. However, Jennifer ends up letting Steve down by not filling the order form he sends her and telling him that she no longer needed his services at the last minute. The questions entailed here are: is Jennifer liable, and can she be legally enforced from her to Stevie? Has Stevie suffered any loss or injury as a result of Jennifer not keeping her word or rather has the act of breaking the promise resulted in the other party severely suffering?
Rule
Regarding the Legal Dictionary: Promissory Estoppel[2] “Promissory Estoppel refers to the particular idea that the law can enforce a promise from one person to another. This is in a condition that the sign that is broken causes some injury or results in a loss. The idea here is that the individual promising is restricted from arguing that the promise that is underlying at the case’s heart shouldn’t be upheld legally. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel allows for the individual injured to recover on a specific promise upon which he or she relied and suffered some loss as a result.
Analysis
In such a case, there was a promise broken. That was for Jennifer failing to return Stevie’s messages and not picking up his call. This meant that she had gone against their agreement. However, for Steve to make her some Latin Cake decorations which Jennifer was to pay. However, she does not return his call and fails to submit her order form, which would indicate the particulars of the decorations that were to be provided by Steve. She gets too busy to fill and submit the way and decides an alternative that was to make the cake by herself.
The reason for this was her worry that Stevie’s rates were significantly high, and she may fail to afford the services. This resulted in huge losses incurred by Stevie after Jennifer tells him that his cake may be much more costly than she had initially anticipated. The damage was as a result of the numerous hours that Stevie had spent making those decorations and probably had been exhausted from the whole process. Additionally, Jennifer’s order was so unique and unusual; hence he would not have been able to utilize them for any other orders placed by a different customer. Therefore, the number of resources and time spent in them was all for nothing, hence the significant loss.
Conclusion
The aspect of Promissory Estoppel would not be relevant in this case because the services had not been provided. Also, the fact that Jennifer failed to fill and submit the order form means that she had not given her specifics regarding what she wanted for the party decoration. This means that Jennifer had not legally broken a promise that would convict her for not fulfilling her promise. It is not deniable that the other party suffered a significant loss for his sweat and time that he would never get back. His efforts bore no fruits as he never got compensated for the decorations by his client. However, customers are always privileged to change their mind if they think that the commodity would not fulfill his or her desires or if they think of better alternatives. Stevie should know that it was one of the risks he had to encounter within his job, that sometimes he is going to be disappointed, and there is nothing he could do about it. He needs to accept it and not give up on his job.
- Is there an Enforceable contract between Albert and Jennifer?
Issue
The problem here is whether or not there exists an enforceable issue between Albert and Jennifer. This means that the elements of binding contracts have to be demonstrated for it to be so. Jennifer needs some help for the party venue and sends her cousin a text asking him to help her in putting up streamers and balloons for the party on that day of the party, which would be Saturday. However, Albert wants some compensation for his efforts and asks what he stands to gain, but Jennifer reminds him of a favor she had previously done for him, and his input would be some form of payment to her. However, this does not convince Albert enough.
Rule
The rule states that in case a contract has been breached, the law will provide some remedy to the party often harmed in the form of cash, or some limited situations, in the form of the exceptional performance of that specific promise that has been made. The “Cornel Law School” [3]states that one of the aspects of the enforceable contract is that there has to be mutual consent and consideration. Also, the deal has to be governed mainly by state law and judge-made policies. There also should be some remedies for any damages caused by any contract breach. This means that the affected party has to be compensated for their loss.
Analysis
In such a situation, one has to look into the aspects of the enforceable contract concerning the rule. Firstly, there needs to be consent from both parties, that is both Jennifer and Albert. There is no such thing demonstrated apart from the fact that Jennifer had helped her cousin Albert with his college assignment during the previous month. Also, the contract has to be governed by state laws. No law gives provisions on how favors should be compensated.
Moreover, there aren’t any remedies provided within the written policies for the party suffering the loss. In this case, Jennifer is the person suffering because she is not able to convince Albert to help her. However, there isn’t any possible way that the government may compensate her, nor can Albert be forced to uphold part of his promise.
Conclusion
There isn’t any form of an enforceable contract entered between the two parties. Albert cannot be held responsible if he fails to help Jennifer as they had not agreed on how Albert would compensate his cousin Jennifer for her help with his assignment.
- Is Bobby entitled to be paid the $50 in case he assists Jennifer with the setup of the party?
Issue
Due to Albert not turning up, Jennifer calls to all her cousins and tells them that whoever helps her with the decoration would be compensated $50. Bobby, who is Jennifer’s uncle, decides to help her after seeing her message so that he can be the one receiving the $50.
Rule
If someone helps you with something that you asked for and promised to compensate them, they should be paid as initially agreed for their efforts. “Financial Ombudsman Service” provides that it is only ethical if the individual providing the service receives payment after they uphold their promise.[4]
Analysis
Given that Jennifer needed some help with the decorations and Albert not turning up to help her, she provides favorable conditions for whoever lends her a hand, which was payment for $50. Her uncle Bobby makes up his mind to assist her so that he can be the recipient of the cash. That means that he accepts to help his niece only because of the payment. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be interested. Also, Jennifer sent the message to her cousins and not uncles. The fact that Bobby saw the text through his daughter’s phone does not make him liable for the offer.
Conclusion
The only conclusion is that it is up to Jennifer to decide whether or not she will pay her uncle as he wasn’t one of the people expected to assist. He should help Jennifer for free since they are related, and she is doing it for her grandparents. However, if he comes through, then Jennifer should compensate him, given that he is the only one who was there when she needed the help most.
[1] Law.com Dictionary
[2] Legal Dictionary: Promissory Estoppel
[3] Cornel Law School
[4] Financial Ombudsman Service: Understanding Compensation