Running head: CASE ANALYSIS 1

Contract Analysis

Name

Institution Affiliation
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 2

A contract is a mutual agreement between two or more parties that is legally binding and

can be enforced by law. For a contract to be legally binding there must be; offer, acceptance,

consideration and consent to bind. Offer is whereby one party makes a demand which must be

met by the other party. When an offer is made, the other party can either reject or accept the

offer. The offer must be rejected or accepted within the stipulated timeline put forth by the

offering party (Randy, Barnett, 2003).

Consideration is something of value which is foregone by both parties in order to honor

the agreement. Under the consent to bind, there must be a “meeting of the minds “between the

two parties entering into a contract.

However, there are incidences when the above conditions are not met or honored by one

of the parties involved. This could lead to a breach of contract .one of the legal ways to remedy a

contract are through paying of damages. The defaulting party in an agreement will be required to

pay damages in order to remedy the breach of contract.

I went through this scenario around three or four times all in an attempt to completely

assess all the details it has in the best way I could. In the first place, I will examine the situation

from the point of an entrepreneur perspective, keeping in mind that God has provided me the

capacity to make riches while utilizing the real estate vehicles as a method for achieving it.

Presently as a land financial specialist I manage a considerable measure of agreements inside

pretty much all that I do, from purchasing a property to procuring a contractual worker and

having said property recorded available to be purchased.

The exact opposite thing I need is a claim in my day to day dealings, I spite of who the

offended party or litigant might be, so I do all that is in my energy (utilizing great confidence and
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 3

moral reason as my watch) to discover a solution for a question or misjudging before it achieves

the following level which could be a claim. Having said that, this is my assessment;

As I examine this story, I genuinely trust that Barbara is justified to sue Alfred for harms

she might have been put through from him not having the timely and well-prepared in view of

their verbal assention. Additionally, she is justified to sue him for extra costs she may have

caused in having the second all around bored and for the lost of her apple crop that was slated to

be worth about $15,000. By her having the privilege to sue does not take away the privileges of

Alfred

As indicated by my examination and investigation, Alfred did all that he possibly could

do to rectify the unavoidable circumstance that emerge as he penetrated the well and was

likewise eager to endure the $2,400.00 lost that he brought about and begin to bore another well

without an expansion in the cost, however Barbara declined to give him a chance to continue,

that, as well as it took Alfred 10 days to bore 200 feet, therefore, in the event Barbara had

permitted him to start the second well, it would have been finished a long ways before time, as it

were, he provided her cures yet she did not take.

There is no doubt that Alfred did all this in good faith amid the period the contract was

valid. As per the Dynamic Business Law, The Fundamental and I quote “The Uniform

Commercial Code (UCC) calls for Good faith in the enforcement and performance of each and

every contract.” When I considered the interpretation of the word “good Faith” I would say it

means honest, reasonable, reliability and understanding. Alfred exhibits all of this. On the other

hand, we can say that Barbara was very unprofessional in her decision making, as I considered

the actions of Alfred and Barbara doing the life of the contract and leading up to dispute it is
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 4

cleared that Alfred was ethical throughout the process, while Barbara mind was set on taking

advantage of him in order to get a free well drilled.

We should consider a portion of the realities for the situation paving the way to the

debate. Barbara as of now had a well that she had utilized for a considerable length of time,

which likewise implies that she didn't require another bored direly, as confirmation, when she

contracted Carl to bored the second well (which in actuality the Alfred had made a request to

bore) it was not finished till the finish of October, that, as well as he penetrated just 300 feet

rather than the 350 feet as settled upon, yet she neglected to request that he discount the

distinction or even better prosecute him considering that there was not a provision in their

agreement expressing that he will bore 350 feet or at whatever point he achieves water, whatever

one happens first. Rather she is attempting to have Alfred paid the full cost for the work done via

Carl. Somebody from outside looking in will accept that Barbara activity demonstrates that she

was desirous of or most likely jealous of Alfred's prosperity.

Then again, keeping in mind that Alfred ensured the consummation of the work on the

date asked for by Barbara, if his inability to finish the boring of the well was because of his

carelessness or absence of intrigue (great confidence) then she would have all rights to case

harms and whatever else she may see as fundamental, yet this claim it is as quite obvious that he

attempted everything he could to satisfy his piece of the assention however was reliably denied

just as Barbara's primary objective was to indict him.

I do not trust that Barbara is qualified for any harm from Alfred since none was done, if the

judge was to issue any type of reward for harms, I would state to have Alfred discount the

$3,500.00 she offered him as advance money since the work was in certainty never finished.
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 5

CONTRACT ANALYSIS SCENARIO 2

Extra, a publisher for a local newspaper is suing Mundo, a manufacturer of printing

presses on breach of contract. Undo was to supply Extra with a new printing press at a cost of

$2.4 million but later renegaded on the deal by coming up with a new price $2.9 million which if

not paid ,there will be no deal.

Mundo is obligated to sell the printing press to Extra at a cost of $2.4 million because that

was the offer which was agreed upon on the contract. Furthermore, Mundo did not specify any

particular mode of acceptance to be followed by Extra. Extra has the right to terminate the

contract on the grounds that Mundo is acting in bad faith. However, Extra can still sue Mundo to

be compensated for the damages incurred to demolish the new wall and new electrical

installations.

The moment I began this assessment of this situation, I thought of two different things.

They included what characterizes a contract and secondly how we define or determine a remedy.

For this reason, I will first begin by characterizing the word contract. As per the website for

business dictionary, a contract is "An intentional, consider, and legitimately authoritative

agreement between at least two capable gatherings. They are normally composed yet might be

implied or spoken, and in general need to do with sale, employment, rent or sale, or tenure. An

authoritative relationship is confirmed by (1) an offer, (2) acknowledgment of the offer, and a (3)

legitimate (lawful and important) thought. Each gathering to an agreement gets rights and

obligations with respect to the rights and obligations of alternate gatherings. On the other side,

whereas all parties might anticipate a reasonable benefit from the contract (or else courts might
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 6

declare it as unfair) it doesn’t follow that every party will profit to an equivalent degree.” If I

was to define the word contract in my own words I would probably say it is a written or verbal

agreement between two legal persons or parties. Legal in the sense of age, and or authority to

carry on a contract (Randy, Barnett, 2003). Regardless of the definition they both point to the

same fact, “written or verbal agreement”, and now holding those constant, I will move on with

my analysis.

Mundo was not obligated to sell the presses to Extra for 2.4 million because they did not

have any form of agreement. Despite the fact that Rep paid a visit to the Boss who in this case is

the president of Extra but the visit was that of a sales person telling a potential customer the

essence of dealing with his organization and during the visit with Boss no sort of agreement was

made, I believe the directors of Extra was still undecided until Boss got the letter from Sales

stating that he would sell the presses to him for 2.4 million, even then, when the Boss tried to

contact Sale to finalize the deal he was out of the country, so nothing was finalized that would

have bind Mundo to sell the presses for 2.4 million.

First, I will investigate the meaning of Remedies as I have accepted that Mundo was

committed to pitch the presses to Extra as advertised. Cure is the five fundamental answers for

break of assention consolidate these: compensation, cash harms, rescission, recharging, and

specific execution. A money hurt allow consolidates a sum of money that is given as

compensation for financial hardships realized by a breach of consent.

Extra has the right to prosecute Mundo for losses or damages or the organization goes

into because of Mundo’s refusal to respect what they had agreed, yet, before Extra does that

there are different methods that are accessible to that may determine the issue and save both
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 7

organization the time that perhaps squandered amid the fight in court in court in addition to high

legal advisor's expenses. Alternate means is to look for a solution for the debate. From the

characterization, we comprehend that there are five choices that are accessible to Additional for

to attempt to determine this question under the steady gaze of it achieves the stairs of the court.

As I would see it there are two methodologies that ought to be taken by Extra, the first

being reorganization; attempting to check whether Mundo can rebuild the agreement in a way

that will fulfill both organizations and they can keep on doing business with each other and keep

up a warm working relationship. In the event that that fizzles than Extra should utilize arrange B,

which is to request cash harm considering that they had rebuild the shop to the proposed spec of

Mundo by tearing the divider and moving different things around in the pressroom Additionally

request that Mundo pay whatever expense or cost that may get from the powerlessness of Extra

to respect their agreement with the organization for the electrical establishments. Mundo ought to

likewise be held at risk for harms endure by Extra because of their inability to convey the presses

as beforehand concurred.

Dynamic Business Law, The Essential, written by Nancy Kubasek, M. Neil Browne,

Danial J. Herron, Lucien J. Dhooge, and Linda Barkacs puts it this way; “the fact that one party

has breached a contract does not necessarily mean that the non-breaching party will sue. There

are a number of factors that go into the decision making of whether it makes sense to file a suit.

Some other considerations are 1. The probability of effectiveness, at the end of the day would we

be able to make this agreement effective, 2. The yearning or need to keep a continuous

association with the potential respondent 3. The potential outcomes of improving or quicker

determination through some type of option question determination, and 4 the cost of suit or some

type of option debate determination contrasted with the estimation of the possible remedy."
CONTRACT ANALYSIS 8

There are choices that Extra should consider before settling on a ultimate choice to

safeguard its rights against Mundo. At the end of the day the gatherings to the question may first

need to progress in the direction of finding a tranquil determination to their issue and as a last

resort then, for this situation additional will have no other choice however to look for legitimate

means utilizing the court..

CONTRACT ANALYSIS 9

References

Nancy Kubasek, M. Neil Browne, Danial J. Herron, Lucien J. Dhooge, Linda Barkacs Dynamic

business Law, The essentials, Third edition, Chap. 14, 15 and 16

Randy E. Barnett (2003)”Contracts” Aspen Publishers

Rogerson,W.(1980) Economic Efficiency and Damage Measures in Contract Law, California

Institute of Technology