Is There An Enforceable Contract Between Samantha And Julie? (Case Study Sample)

Common Law Assignment
University’s Name:
Submitted by:
Tutor:
27th August, 2016
Word Count: 1,425
Issue: Is There An Enforceable Contract Between Samantha And Julie?
Case Law and Application
Yes there is an enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie. As is the case with Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, the nature of the transaction between Samantha and Julie contains all the elements of a contract. First of all, there was an offer to contract given out by Samantha when she asked Julie whether she would prepare cakes and sandwiches for consumption for the one hundred people who will attend the comedy play. Additionally, there was an acceptance when Julie said that she would indeed prepare the cakes and sandwiches for the event. By accepting the offer given by Samantha, Julie agreed to be part of the contract.[Carill Versus Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]1 QB 256]
There was also a consideration involved in the transaction when Julie says that she will charge $5 per person and so the total will be $500. Owing to the fact that Samantha did not refute the proposed price, this stands to be the consideration for this contract. There is also a mutuality of obligation and a willingness to be legally bound. Both Samantha and Julie understand the roles they have to play in the transaction. While Julie is supposed to prepare cakes and sandwiches for consumption by the play attendees, Samantha is supposed to provide remuneration for this, as well as giving further instructions to Julie.
Further, the transaction has another element of a contract which is the competency and capacity to contract. Julie has a sound mind and has an understanding of what role she has to play in the transaction even though she is a minor. She also stands to gain financially from this contract and so this contract is enforceable. However, Julie would not be held liable for a breach of the contract if she failed to perform her part of the contract because the law considers minors to be too young and inexperienced to negotiate for favorable contract terms with adults. On the other hand, Samantha is a sane adult, capable of making decisions and entering into contracts and thus she has the capacity and competency to contract. Finally, the transaction between Samantha and Julie is an enforceable contract because there is a written agreement to show it. This is in the form of a text message that Samantha sent to Julie’s phone, asking her to proceed with the preparation for cakes and sandwiches.
Conclusion
The transaction between Samantha and Julie contains all the elements of a contract and it is therefore legally binding.
Issue: Assuming There Is an Enforceable Contract between Julie and Samantha, Does Samantha Need to pay $100 To Julie’s Mother Martha?
Even though there is an enforceable contract between Julie and Samantha, Samantha does not need to pay Julie’s mother Martha, for the ingredients used by her daughter to prepare the sandwiches and cakes; neither does she have to deduct the same amount from the consideration to be given to Julie. This is because Samantha entered into a contract with Julie and not Martha. In this contract, Martha is a third party.
Case Law and Application
According to the case law Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd that forms the basis of the doctrine of privity, only the parties that have entered into a contract are bound by it and a third party not privy to the contract has no legal capacity to enforce it. Samantha is therefore not under any legal obligation to pay Martha.[Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd [1988] 165 CLR 107]
Conclusion
Even if Martha sought legal action, the court will not award any compensation to her as this will be in breach of the contractual law, binding the willing parties. Instead, Julie on her own should be the one responsible for paying her mother for using her ingredients to prepare the cakes and sandwiches for which she was contracted. However, this will be a different agreement all together that Samantha will not be a part of; since the agreement between her and Julie did not involve a discussion on the sourcing of ingredients for the preparation of cakes and sandwiches. Her interest was in the finished product
Issue: Is Promissory Estoppel Relevant to Samantha’s Dispute with Dave from Outrageous Costumes?
Promissory Estoppel refers to “the legal principal which states that a promise is enforceable by the law even though a formal consideration was not made when a promisor made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment” (Lambiris, Michael and Griffin & Laura, 2016).[Lambiris, Michael and Griffin, Laura. The first principles of business law. Australia. 2016.Pp.61-101]
Case Law and Application
This principle is relevant to Samantha’s dispute with Dave from Outrageous Costumes. The scenario is similar to the case of Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher in which Walton sought lease of a property owned by Maher. The parties agreed that the initial building would be demolished and a new one would be erected and this new building would be occupied by the Waltons. Rent agreements were even drawn. However in the course of the process, Waltons started having second thoughts about the project. They did not therefore complete the lease agreements. Waltons did not communicate this to Maher even after they had been informed that demolition was underway. Waltons only communicated that it did not wish to continue with the agreement while 40% of the new building was already underway. When Maher sought legal action to enforce the promise, the judge ruled that Waltons was liable to avoid the detriment to be incurred by Maher if the promise is not followed through with.[Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387]
This is because Samantha contacted Dave via email for the creation of the Smurf space suits and even told Dave to go ahead and procure the s...