Business Law Enforceable Contract Discussion and Case Study Analysis


Explanation & Answer length: 2 responses 150 words each 1 Case 300 Words.

Question 1: Please provide feedback to 3 answers below with minimum 150 words per feedback. Please provide the reference’s links if you use them to support your answers. Please use the pronoun “you/your” in your feedbacks. Study case: John Harrington, Jr. (“Junior”) is a 24-year-old, 3-pack-per-day smoker. John Harrington, Sr. (“Senior”) is a very concerned parent. On January 1, father announces to son, “Junior, if you will stop smoking for the entire year, I will pay you $5,000.” Senior believes that if Junior will stop smoking for one year, he will “kick the habit.” Junior reluctantly accepts his father’s terms and extinguishes his half-smoked cigarette with the heel of his boot.

On January 1 of the following year, Junior approaches Senior and says “Dad, time to pay up.” Senior has no reason to doubt that Junior has refrained from smoking for an entire year, but states “Son, this was for your benefit. The gift I have given you is the gift of life, and you are now likely to enjoy that gift longer, because you are now much less likely to contract cancer. Health statistics show that non-smokers live ten years longer than smokers. Enjoy your newfound life, but I will not pay you the $5,000.” Does Senior owe Junior the $5,000? Is there an enforceable contract between father and son? If there is not an enforceable contract, does Junior have any other legal or equitable theory of recovery?

Is Senior ethically obligated to pay Junior the $5,000? Remember – Use the law to support your views. Answers: Student 1: Randy: First, there is an enforceable contract between Senior and Junior. It’s a unilateral contract (a promise for an act) and it’s verbal, but it’s not one of the contracts that must be in writing, so an oral contract here still counts as a contract. The consideration is Senior’s $5000 in exchange for one year of nonsmoking performed by Junior. This is not a case of illusory promises, in which one person makes an if/then statement regarding a promise. Nor is it a case of past consideration — Junior has to quit smoking for the year after the two make their contract. There is no pre-existing duty because no one has a duty to quit smoking. This particular contract’s consideration is a detriment to the promisee–smokers are often addicted to tobacco–or it could be considered to be a promise to refrain from doing something. Either way, it’s fair consideration. Because of that, Senior owes Junior the $5000. Regarding ethics, yes, I believe Senior is ethically obligated to pay the money.

He made a promise to his son, who suffered to fulfill his end of the bargain. If he wants to continue to have a good relationship with his son–if he wants his son to continue to trust him–then he needs to pay the money and knock off the sanctimonious tone. Student 2: Michael: I believe that since the father agreed and even offered to pay the money in full of $5,000 that he should pay up and give it to him because giving up smoking cigarettes when you did it so often is very hard. Many people try and I have seen it with my own eyes that it takes lots of time for people to stop smoking and they always get the urge to do it. The fact that he did not smoke for a whole year assuming that he completed it fairly and did not smoke, I believe he should be awarded not with just the savings of his lungs and money but with the $5,000.

I don’t think there is a formal contract here other than the one between them in person because it is a son and father but if the father is a man of his word I believe he should live up to it and not let it be known that he is a liar. If there was a regular contract with signatures stating a guaranteed salary upon completion of the agreement then I think he should and would be compensated without question but since it is less serious and involves father and son, I think the only way he will get the money is if his father finally agrees to give him the money. Student 3: Chloe Issue 1: Does “Senior” owe “Junior” $5,000? Yes, I believe that senior owes Junior $5,000. He promised, and Junior delivered which can be furthered explained by the second issue. Issue 2: Is there an enforceable contract between father and son? I think that there was an oral contract between Senior and Junior. An oral contract can be enforced if it is admitted by the involved parties.

So, assuming that the parties have admitted to the contract, we can look at what the basic needs are of an enforceable contract. There needs to be an Offer which was made by Senior. Another requirement is Acceptance which is exactly what Junior did. Also both Senior and Junior were competent parties. The subject matter for this contract required that Junior needed to stop smoking. After Acceptance is the mutuality of obligation. Senior and Junior have agreed on the same subject at the same time. Neither party were mislead about the terms of the contract. After examining the facts above, I think we can determine that there was an enforceable contract. Issue 3: Is Senior ethically obligated to pay Junior the $5,000? I believe that Senior breached the contract and Junior deserves damages. However, on the grounds of ethics senior is not obligated to pay junior the $5000.

The father concerned for his son has a parental role to protect the son from hazardous exposures. Senior makes these hazards of smoking known to his son with statistical proof and a good new life found outside smoking. The greater good of the outcome of not smoking ethically outscore the $5000 price, but Senior should pay some kind of reimbursement to Junior at least.

Question 2: Please solve this case with minimum 300 words. Tommy McCartney is a sixteen-year-old high school student. He has worked forty hours per week at the local convenience store over the last year and has diligently saved $6,000 for the purchase of his first car. While visiting a local car dealership, Tommy finds the “car of his dreams,” a used yellow Camaro. Tommy walks into the dealership, announces to the dealership owner that he is “ready to buy,” negotiates $6,000 as the purchase price, and leaves the dealership a proud car owner. Over the course of the next six months, Tommy drives the Camaro eight thousand miles, wears the tires thin, dents the left front fender, and regrets his purchase.

He realizes that in two short years college will beckon, and he knows that his parents cannot afford to pay for his higher education. In short, he wants his money back. On a Saturday morning, Tommy returns to the car dealership, walks into the sales office, and hands the keys to the seller, asking for the return of his $6,000. The dealer chuckles, and then his look turns stern, saying “Son, I don’t owe you anything. You have just learned a lesson in the ‘School of Hard Knocks.’ The car is still yours, and the money is still mine!” Who will prevail? Is it legal and/or ethical to allow Tommy to escape his contractual obligations? Rubric: Don’t quote the textbook or another source. All posts must be written in your own words. Use the law and its definitions to support your views Write 250 to 300 words or more Grammar and spelling Message clear and original. Student’s view is clear and supported by the law and its definitions.

Do you have a similar assignment and would want someone to complete it for you? Click on the ORDER NOW option to get instant services at