Business Law Organize Business Development

Question: Describe about the Business Law for Organize Business Development. Answer: 1. Is there any enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie? The law of contract is defined as an agreement between two entities with the promise of providing some services or good to be rendered in specific time frame. The concept of contract is powered by the concept of offer and acceptance. The contract may be in the form of verbal or written form which enforces the bindings between the two parties to ensure offer and subsequent acceptance[1]. In this case Samantha had offered to make arrangements for some food stuff for her program of drama to Julie who was her student and had her provision to cater such food stuffs for the specified program. Although Julie had urged to place the order in her face book page from where she receives the order and cater, Samantha had texted her with the order with the negotiated price for the items. And the offer of Samantha was being acknowledged by Julie. Hence it is an enforceable contract which is there to bind Julie to send the foodstuffs to the drama venue is stipulated date and time. To ensure a contract enforceable, there are certain criteria like a) specific detailed offer for the product or service, b) acceptance of the offer by the second party or executor, c) the exchange value in consideration either in money or in kind to be exchanged between the two parties, d) capacity of the two parties so far age and mentality is concerned, e) there must be clear intention of both the parties to carry out the agreement, f) and the object of the contract which is derived through the legality of the enforced terms and conditions. A contract is becoming enforceable by law with the willingness of the two parties who agree to enter into an agreement, either in the forms of verbal or written with the exchange of value in cash or in kind and both parties are with sound mental condition with the intention to go for keeping the promise which is legal and not unlawful[2]. All these above factors are prevailing in this case and thus this is proved to be a enforceable contract between Samantha and Julie. In this case the offer had been made by Samantha and the subsequent acceptance had been made by Julie. The date, time and quantity are fixed for the deliverance of the products along with the quality of the products. The value of exchange in the form of price of the products are also being mentioned and agreed by the two parties. The agreement is to supply cakes and sandwiches for 100 people who will come to enjoy the drama organised by Samantha at the rate of $5 per person and the total value of the order had been fixed as $ 500. As the offer of Samantha had been accepted by her student Julie for the above conditions, this agreement is to be considered as contract enforceable by law. 2. Assuming there is an enforceable contract between Julie and Samantha, does Samantha need to pay $ 100 to Julies mother, Martha? The said question occurs due to some unwanted situation which had taken place due to some misbehaviour of Julie who had utilised the raw materials for the supply of the order from the kitchen inventory of her house and had not paid her mother for the value of those ingredients from the value of sales proceeds received by her. The agreement between Samantha and Julie was only to ensure that Julie will deliver some foodstuffs to the organizer of the drama show for which Samantha was the chief coordinator in exchange of value of money to the volume of $500. In the contract nowhere it was mentioned that Samantha had any liability towards procurement of raw materials neither she was concerned about from where Julie will procure the raw materials. Hence the claim of Martha for $ 100 from Samantha is not legitimate as she was not any party to the enforceable contract and it is entirely between her and her daughter Julie to negotiate the matter[3]. This situation arose as Julie had procured the ingredients from the kitchen inventories to serve her order of 100 packs of cakes and sandwiches and Martha was not aware of this. As Julie had declined to pay the cost of the ingredients to Martha worth $ 100, she had appealed to Samantha to pay the money from the payable to Julie which may be done with the consent of Julie only. There is no such compulsion on the part of Samantha to pay Martha from the money to be paid to Julie and thus this enforceable contract cant force Martha to claim the said amount from Samantha. 3. Is Promissory Estoppel relevant to Samanthas dispute with Dave from Outrageous Costumes? The situation had been raised with the issue of dress for the drama. As Samantha had to organise everything of her own, she had tried to find the specific dress with the special features of blue and silver. She had gone through internet and found the firm Outrageous Costumes, who, under the management of Dave could be able to deliver the dresses. When she had contacted Dave for the dresses, he had told that the dress will be costlier as the specific features of blue and silver in the dress will attract more value. Samantha had told him to go ahead with the price tag of the dresses and urged that the same is to be delivered within the specific time frame. Dave had accepted the offer and confirmed her about timely delivery of the dress through voice message due to unattended call by Samantha. While Samantha had got the offer from one of the parents about the dress for free, she had ignored the message of Dave. Two days prior to the drama, when Samantha called Dave to inform him that she did not need the dresses anymore, Dave got frustrated because she had already reached the finals stage of the dress making with his investment of money effort and time on the basis of promise made by Samantha. The question of promissory estoppel[4] arises here as Samantha, a party to the contract had not kept her promise and can be sued by Dave although there is no written agreement was there about the contract. the same can be justified through the occurrence of Bernie Blowhard and Arthur Artist case when Blowhard had promised to Arthur to share the profit of his movie making if Arthur would paint the scenery of the background. When the movie had not clicked and miserably failed, Blowhard had declined the value of the effort of Arthur and subsequently had been sued by Arthur for breach of contract due to promissory estoppel. The court had ordered in favour of Arthur and instructed Blowhard to pay him his value for effort economically. So non compliance of promise on the part of Samantha with Dave related to dresses can be forwarded to court for promissory estoppels and Samantha will be liable for compensation to Dave for his effort, time and money invested for this purpose. 4. Is will entitled to get two tickets for helping set up for the school play? The offer of two free tickets made by Samantha was for parents who will assist her in organizing the drama with their physical presence at 12 pm. The number of the beneficiaries is limited to first ten of the parents. Although Will has turned up as one of the ten first assists who reached before 12 pm, his status was not of parents but was of elder brother of one of the performer of the drama. Although he had taken part in active way to help setting up the stage for the drama, logically he is not eligible for the two free tickets to be offered by Samantha to the parents[5]. But with the gestural approach, the tickets may be offered to Will to recognize his effort towards set up of stage which is required by the organizer for proper staging of the drama. The offer was restricted to the parents of the students through e-mail which had been accessed by Will as an unauthorised user. So there does not arise any such compulsion for Samantha to provide him two free tickets although he had met other conditions of the contract like appearing by 12 pm, being one of the first ten aspirant participators and assisted to set up the stage for the dram with his active role. It is more on gestural value than on the conditions of contract.