BUS 415 Week 4 Learning Team Assignment Foodmart, Inc. Paper
BUS 415 Week 4 Learning Team Assignment Foodmart, Inc. Paper
Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 9 page Study Guide was uploaded by needhelp Notetaker on Monday November 16, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 13 views.
Reviews for BUS 415 Week 4 Learning Team Assignment Foodmart, Inc. Paper
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 11/16/15
BUS/41 1 5 Foodmart, Inc. Paper Team A: BUS/415 Week 4 FOODMART INC 2 Foodmart, Inc. Paper Contracts are present in every aspect of life from housing, to transportation, to food and bills. Cheeseman states that a contract is “a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty” (2010, p. 156). Contracts involve at least two parties and can be made traditionally or electronically. Contracts help to establish working relationship guidelines between the involved parties and a basis upon which a suit could be filed if a party is in breach of contract. Scenario One This scenario is an example of a unilateral or bilateral contract depending on the specific wording that Foodmart used when drafting the contract. According to Henry Cheeseman (2010, p. 157) a unilateral contract is “a contract in which the offeror’s offer can be accepted only by the performance of an act by the offeree; a ‘promise for an act.’” If Foodmart contracted with Masterpiece Construction and agreed to pay them for the renovations if they were complete within the sixmonth time limit the contract is unilateral. Because Masterpiece Construction did not complete the project showing an acceptance of the contract Foodmart cannot sue Masterpiece for not completing the job or subcontracting to another company. A bilateral contract is a contract entered into by way of exchange of promises of the parties; “a promise for a promise” (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 157). If Foodmart contracted with Masterpiece and Masterpiece promised to have the renovations complete within the six month limit Foodmart can sue Masterpiece for damages and recover what was lost in the contract because there was a breach. In this case the contract Masterpiece had for another company to complete the project has no effect on Foodmart, Masterpiece was responsible. In court the Plaintiff Foodmart would win and FOODMART INC 3 Masterpiece construction would be guilty of breach of contract. It would be important for future contracts that Foodmart used a formal contract with specific words to avoid confusion. Scenario Two Scenario two involves the dealings of a minor, Jeremy Atwater, and the contracts that he entered although not of the legal age of consent in the United States of America. A contract is an agreement between parties enforceable by a court of law. The essence of a valid contract between Jeremy and Smooth Sales Used Cars are the elements of an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. There exist not legal contract between the parties because Jeremy is a minor who is not legally responsible or liable for entering such contracts. Cheeseman (2010) states that the “infancy doctrine gives minors the right to disaffirm most contracts that they enter with adults.” An exception to the infancy doctrine exists when the minor signs a contract for necessities. In this instance the vehicle is not a necessity for the minor and Smooth Sales Used Cars has the position of repossessing the car from Jeremy and returning the 1,200 dollars plus the down payment paid by Jeremy to the dealership. The circumstances revolving around this case are clear in that Smooth Sales Used Cars is responsible for ensuring that Jeremy Atwater is of the age of maturity and in valid legal standing to go into a legally binding contract with Smooth Sales Used Cars. Smooth Sales Used Cars did not take the necessary reasonable care required before entering a contract with Jeremy Atwater and in turn is responsible for the invalid contract. The remedies for this situation are clear; Smooth Sales Used Cars should return the monthly payments plus the down payment to Jeremy Atwater and take back ownership of the vehicle that was sold. The minor should receive restoration to the same position that he or she was in prior to entering the contract. FOODMART INC 4 Scenario Three Scenario number three explains a situation between train hobbyist Brian McDonald and fellow train hobbyist, Harry. Brian owns a large and rare collection of oneofakind trains that he promised only to Harry when he goes into retirement and sells his trains. Harry looked forward to the day he could purchase the trains from Brian. For the next two years, Harry was spending all of his time and money, even money borrowed from his aunt, to build a 2,000square foot building for the trains. Harry told Brian about the building for the trains, and Brian also knew about the money that Harry borrowed from his aunt. After all of Harry’s hard work, time, and emotions invested, Brian retired and sold the trains to his neighbor, James. In the end, Harry decided to sue Brian. When this case goes to court, Harry will either try suing Brian for breach of contract in hopes of at least winning compensatory damages. Depending on the judge’s decisions on the oral contract, if Harry has no chance of winning the suit under breach of contract, he can back up his case using promissory estoppel. First, breach of contract is the presence of an arrangement in which one of the individuals or groups fail to meet their obligations under the written or oral contract, without a legitimately valid defense (FindLaw, 2010). A breach of contract in this case follows under, failing to perform as orally promised (AllBusiness, 2010). Brian did not hold to his end of the promise so Harry can sue for compensatory damages. Compensatory damages is the money that is awarded to the plaintiff to pay for damages or another incurred loss as a result of the negligence or unlawful demeanor of another party. For Harry to collect compensatory damages, he must prove to the jury and court judge that a loss occurred, the quantifiable amount of loss, and the loss was attributable to the defendant. FOODMART INC 5 Promissory estoppel will allow Harry to sue Brian over an oral contract that is enforceable under Arizona Statute of Frauds. Because Brian and Harry’s oral agreement for the sale of property was not a written contract with at least one witness, Harry still has a chance to sue Brian using promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a lawful principle legitimating that a promise is enforceable by law when the party making the promise to the party receiving the promise, relies on it to their detriment. The promissory estoppel will prevent Brian from denying that the statement or promise to sell the trains to Harry after his retirement did not happen. In every case, attorney’s will comeback with some sort of argument. The first argument that may arise is that there was no evidence of Brian and Harry’s contract stating that the trains were only to be sold to Harry when Brian retired. The oneyear rule suggests creating a written contract before the first year is up. Because there was no written contract and Brian’s retirement was the conditional precedent, Harry will have to turn to the Statute of Frauds (AllBusiness, 2010). Almost all states have a law called Statute of Frauds. The purpose of these laws is to prevent fraudulent claims. In Brian’s defense, the Statute of Frauds requires a written contract for the sales of real property, the collection of trains (Nolo, 2010). According to nearly all state laws, if this type of contract in their state’s Statute of Frauds is not memorialized in a written contract, the contract is not enforceable (Nolo, 2010). According to Arizona’s Statute of Frauds, Harry has up to three years to file suit against Brian for break of oral contract (Nolo, 2010). With the promissory estoppel and Statute of Frauds, Harry could have a good chance of winning the case and collecting from compensatory damages. Although the contract alone between Harry and Brian is not enforceable, Harry was reliant on Brian’s promise so it would be unfair not to enforce the agreement. After much thought, the decision on this scenario is Harry would win the suit. Harry’s intent to purchase the FOODMART INC 6 trains is even more proof that Brian has gone back on his promise. As serious as Harry was about purchasing the trains after Brian’s retirement, he should have asked Brian to sign a contract for future reference in good faith to both parties. However, no matter what seems fair, the law is the law. Brian will have to give Harry money in the amount of the costs of Harry’s investment on the storage building for the trains that he did not receive. If Harry was lucky, the judge could even order that the trains go to Harry for the amount that Brian’s neighbor had to pay to purchase them. Scenario Four In scenario four, Todd sees an ad from Foodmart for a chocolate sauce on sale. He needs the discontinued chocolate sauce for a cake that he makes. Foodmart has an online site that Todd can order the chocolate sauce from and have it delivered to his home. To make a purchase through the Foodmart site Todd agrees to the terms and conditions contract for the site. The contract states that advertised sale prices do not apply to online purchases and customers can only purchase onhand inventory from the nearest store. Todd tries to buy the entire chocolate sauce inventory from the nearest store from the Foodmart site. The nearest store claims to be outofstock even though they still have 10 cases. Todd tries to buy the inventory from the other two nearest stores to no avail because the terms and conditions state the nearest stores inventory. Todd sues for all the chocolate sauce from all three stores at the sales price or the lost profit from the cakes he would have sold if he had the ingredient. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, ecommerce is “Commerce conducted over the Internet, most often via the World Wide Web. Ecommerce can apply to purchases made through the Web or to businesstobusiness activities such as inventory transfers” (ecommerce, FOODMART INC 7 2008). With the rise in the use of ecommerce there are many laws regulating Internet contracts making them legally binding. According to contractual law, a contract is legally binding if there is an offer made by an offerer and is accepted by the offeree (Cheeseman, 2010). By clicking the box stating that Todd agrees to the terms and conditions of the Foodmart site, Todd accepted the offer of the contract to purchase the nearest stores inventory at the regular price. Therefore, Todd would not win the suit against Foodmart to purchase from the nearest three stores inventory at the advertised sales price. However, the terms and conditions stated that Foodmart would sell available inventory of the nearest store. When Todd accepted the terms and conditions a contract established between Todd and Foodmart. Todd may only purchase the 10 cases of chocolate sauce that the nearest Foodmart has in stock. The sales price is not applicable to the purchase according to the contract so Todd would have to pay full price. The court would most likely rule to uphold the contract between Todd and Foodmart. Todd would be allowed to purchase the 10 cases of chocolate sauce from the nearest store at the full price. Foodmart was wrong in not allowing Todd to purchase the nearest stores inventory. Todd was also wrong to demand the sales price and the other two stores inventory. Both parties should review the contract. Conclusion Contracts are in place to help guide all parties of the contract to follow the guidelines within the agreements. They are used in almost every aspect of daily life such as rent, car payments, utilities, and work. Courts can use the terms of a contract in event of a suit to decide FOODMART INC 8 which party is in breach and which party should be ruled in favor of. Basically, contracts are the basis upon which agreements are made and followed through. FOODMART INC 9 References Cheeseman, H. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, ecommerce, regulatory, and international issues (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Promissory Estoppel. (2010) The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel.