Grocery Inc. Narrative Essay Example

it not placing a provision within the contract that would allow the organization to sub-contract to another organization. ‘Thus’, quoting Ulen and Cooter, ‘if parties do not want the cheaper preventer of, or insurer against, to be saddled with the risk of non-performance if that contingency comes to pass, they should say so explicitly. ’(Commercial Impracticability, 2008). Grocery Inc. should prevail in this matter due to the aforementioned sustenance of law; Masterpiece’s breach of contract was the result of greed!

In this ongoing discussion, Jeff Fresh, a minor has agreed to purchase an automobile from Smooth Sales Used Cars. Consequently, Jeff does not have the capacity to contract because he is under the age of 18 and is below the statutory age of majority which is called the period of minority. A contract is an agreement that is enforceable by a court of law or equity. Additionally, a contract is a promise or 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.

Every contract involves at least two parties; however in this scenario the offeree is a minor and therefore constitutes a voidable contract. Because there are 4 basic requirements to a contract which include the following; agreement, consideration, contracted capacity and lawful object. Minors do not always possess a level of maturity or experience that would afford the opportunity to enter into a contract. Jeff was within his legal rights to return to Smooth Sales and inform them of his inability to pay.

In addition because he was not of legal age when he signed the contract,

the writer considers his request of returning his down payment reasonably since the contract was not valid. Lastly, Smooth Sales should have verified Jeff’s age prior to taking his money. In addition, there was another case where a promissory estoppel became a serious law suit for two men by the name of Harry and Tom. Tom who was a train collector promised to sell Harry his collection after he retired from Grocery Inc.

Whether Harry will be able to enforce Tom’s gratuitous promise to sell model trains although his promise lacks consideration? Harry will succeed in court on a claim of promissory estoppel because he reasonably relied on Tom’s promise to his detriment. The promise to sell the trains to Harry was merely a gratuitous promise because the offer was lacking the crucial element of consideration. However, because Harry detrimentally relied on Tom’s promise by building a 2000 sq. ft room onto his house to make room for the trains, he should be able make a claim of promissory estoppel.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an exception to the classical elements of a contract. The courts should allow a contract to be enforced albeit it lacks consideration by allowing detrimental reliance to substitute for consideration. In Clausen & Sons, the court held that liability may ensue even if the detriment incurred by one party is not bargained for, if the promisor should reasonably have expected the promise to induce another's detrimental action. Clausen ; Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. , 395 F. 2d 388 (8th Cir. 968). Here, Tom should have expected his promise to induce some kind of detriment because Clausen

; Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. , 395 F. 2d 388 (8th Cir. 1968) was a good example. Also, he knew that Harry was a train hobbyist. Furthermore, Tom also knew that he collected very rare and one-of-a-kind trains that any hobbyist would love to have in his collection. Harry also told Tom that he was building the new room onto his house and Tom simply smiled. Tom was also aware that Harry borrowed money from his aunt to buy the trains.

Tom should have made Harry aware of the fact that he intended to sell the trains to another buyer. Therefore, Tom will lose on a claim of breach of contract with promissory estoppel substituting for the element of consideration. Lastly, in the Grocery Inc. vs George case where both Grocery and George have agreed to a contractual agreement. By George ordering online, he has agreed to Grocery’s terms. Grocery has discontinued an item and is now selling it at a reduced price. This item is critical to George’s catering operations.

George has placed an online order of this item but Grocery claims it has sold out. Grocery actually has 10 cases on its inventory. Why Grocery has failed to accommodate George is the question at hand. Although Grocery’s policy states items marked on sale will not carry over to online purchases; this clearly means that George cannot purchase this item at the reduced price. Citing the contract, George should be able to purchase all ten cases at the original price. However, George’s law suit should be invalid because the contract states he cannot use the online system and receive discounted prices.