Final paper case study LAW-201 (Essay Sample)

Final paper case study LAW-201
Name:
Subject:
Date of Submission
Final paper case study LAW-201
Introduction
Barkley is a son to Knarles and together; they run a facilities maintenance company. Barkley is seventeen years old implying he is not an adult. The two partners built their reputation by providing maintenance to both commercial and residential buildings. Some of the services provided by Barkley and Knarles include replacing old equipment, washing windows, painting, and removing snow. They also had four employees who worked in their organization on a full-time basis. As a result, their plumber enjoyed an opportunity to have a license renewal in the District of Columbia (the license was renewed by his organization). It is critical that Chetum approached Barkley requesting for their services who responded by replying with an agreement signed by Barkley. Knarles and Barkley provided services to Chetum, but their contract broke down after the first service. As a result, Chetum sued Knarles and Barkley for a breach of contract. This paper analyses the legal implications of the case in question using contract formation laws, agency laws, jurisdictional aspects, and the law of tort.
Contract Formation
A contract could be elucidated as a legally applicable promise. Thus, according to the law, a valid contract must have several essential elements. The main elements of a valid contract include acceptance, offer, consideration, legality, the capacity to contract, and an intention to create a legal relationship. The case study in question fulfilled most elements of a valid contract, but not all of them. For instance, Xiao (2011) reveals that a consideration must be valuable according to the law. This is because a contract involves an agreement between two parties where all the parties receive something in exchange for their promise. The contract under discussion included a consideration because Chetum sent a check to Knarles and Barkley in exchange for their services. Additionally, the contract also fulfilled the legality condition because written agreements were sent and received by both parties. For instance, Chetum received a signed agreement from Barkley who, responded by signing it and returning it to Barkley.
According to Beatty (2012), a valid contract should ascertain that the contracting parties had the intention to build a legal relationship. This occurs when parties make promises to each other. The court always considers such promises as legal promises unless when they are promises made on domestic matters. The case under discussion had the intention to build a lawful relationship because Chetum delivered a check in exchange for building and maintenance services from Knarles and Barkley. It is notable that Beatty et al., (2013) reveals that a contract should also have an offer. Under the offer, the offeror must communicate the terms of the offer to the offeree. The offeror must ensure that the offeree accepts the terms of the offer before acceptance of the. Clearly, the case involving Chetum, Knarles, and Barkley met the offer condition of a valid contract. The condition was fulfilled because Chetum made an offer to Barkley.
Another element that applies to the case in question is acceptance. The general rule of thumb is that acceptance must be communicated in a manner requested by the offeror. Simply put, an offer must take on certain words that indicate acceptance of the offer (Slorach and Ellis, 2012). It is notable that Barkley delivered a signed document to Chetum implying that the offer was accepted. It is vital to highlight that the case between Chetum, Knarles, and Barkley fulfilled most conditions of the contract. However, the case failed to consider the capacity to contract. According to Xiao (2011), minors are naïve and are protected by the law against manipulation. Barkley was seventeen years old implying the law can protect him against manipulation from adult businesspersons. Further, Knarles appears to have sensed the manipulation before deciding to cancel their contract with Chetum. Moreover, Joe Stucko mentions an experience where Chetum manipulated him.
It is also notable that Knarles decided to refund Chetum a check for services they had not provided. However, Chetum still sued Knarles and Barkley for a breach of contract. Considering the elements of the case, Chetum cannot win the case because their contract involved Barkley, who is still a minor. It follows that the contract is not valid in the eyes of the law because a legal contract must prove that the contracting parties had a capacity to contract (Beatty, 2012). Nonetheless, Barkley is seventeen years old and is protected by law against manipulation by adult businesspersons. Furthermore, Knarles refunded the check Chetum had paid earlier. It follows that Chetum cannot prove that he incurred economic damages in a court because Knarles already compensated him. It is evident that the move by Chetum to sue for a breach of contract is likely to result in a loss because the contract was not valid. In addition, Chetum was compensated for the cost he incurred earlier.
The Law of Tort
Slorach and Ellis (2012) define a tort as a civic wrong that can resolved using damages. In order to receive damages for tort cases, the plaintiff must establish two factors about the defendant and one additional factor. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was obligated by the law to perform certain duties or act in a specified manner. The plaintiff should then prove beyond reasonable doubt the defendant breached his duty by acting conversely to his mandate. The plaintiff must also establish that he/she suffered a loss or injury because of the defendant’s actions (Beatty et al., 2013). It is also notable that there are three main types of tort, which include intentional tort, tort of negligence, and the tort of strict liability. An intentional tort occurs when the defendant actions are purposeful. Thus, such a case will require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant intended to act in a specified manner.
Analogously, the tort of negligence occurs when the defendant fails to perform according to his/her responsibilities. Thus, it requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff and failed on the duty, which caused harm to the plaintiff. It is critical that some States allow comparative negligence laws while others require the defendant to be fully responsible for harm caused to the plaintiff (Beatty, 2012). Therefore, court rulings on the tort of negligence vary depending on the States where cases are held. The tort of strict liability occurs when a civil wrong is committed erroneously. The best defense for this duty is due diligence. Nonetheless, the defendant may still be forced to pay for damages depending on the circumstances of the case. Defamation is also considered a tort because it could result in harm. A tort defamation case requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant made a false statement that harmed the plaintiff.
It is evident that the case involving Chetum, Knarles, and Barkley has elements of tort cases. For instance, the plumber who worked with Knarles and Barkley was entitled to an annual license renewal by his employers. However, the plumber’s license was not renewed this year because of Barkley’s negligence. This could result in a tort of negligence because the plumber negotiated for the deal four years ago. However, the deal was sealed using a two-year written agreement. It should also be noted that Knarles and Barkley renewed contracts with their customers without written agreements because of long-term relationships. Therefore, a similar argument could apply to the license renewal agreement between the plumber and his employers. It is crucial to stress that negligence from Barkley does not qualify the case as a tort of negligence because the plumber did not incur harm or loss from the case. Therefore, a tort of negligence does not exist between the plumber, Knarles, and Barkley.
It is clear that the tort of defamation is present in the case under discussion. Knarles told other members of the maintenance community that Chetum could shoot his mother for money. In turn, Joe Stucko told Knarles that Chetum had stolen his plans. Their statements could result in a tort of defamation if Chetum proves the following conditions before a court of law. First, Chetum should establish that the statements made by Knarles and Stucko were false. He should also proof that their statements resulted in a loss or harm. Clearly, it is easy to prove harm from Stucko’s statement because Chetum lost Knarles as a client. Nonetheless, proving that Knarles’ statement resulted in a loss or harm would be difficult because Chetum chose to fix a boiler instead of replacing it. Chetum should also establish that statements made by Stucko and Knarles are unprivileged. If Stucko proves these conditions in a court of law, then he could sue Stucko for defamation.
The tort of strict liability also applies to the case in question. This owes to the reality that
Chetum’s tenants could sue Knarles for damages resulting from his services. However, this case is disputable because Knarles and Barkley did not sign a contract to protect Chetum’s tenants. According to Xiao (2011), Young vs. Abalene Pest Control Services, Inc, had a related case. Young contracted the defendant to clear pests at home. The pests remained after the defendants services, which made Young’s family sick. Nonetheless, the court refused to grant damages for sickness by citing the case as a breach of contract instead of a tort. Similarly, Knarles and Barkley cannot meet the damages resulting from the tort of strict liability. As evidence, Knarles and Barkley did not sign a contract to protect Chetum’s tenants. Instea...