Business' Law PaperPlace Your Order Now
How Does Our System Work?
It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order
Submit your Question
Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.
Best Writer Assigned
We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.
Calculate the price of your order
Business' Law Assignment
Business Law Essay
One of the most important principles or elements of contract law is that the parties must enter into a contract out of their own free will. Hence, for a contract to be legally binding, the parties must give genuine consent. In the present case, Russell did not give his consent to be psychiatrically examined in the psychiatric hospital and hence it may be argued that he should not pay for the services he did not want because he did not give his consent. However, because the psychiatric treatment was a legally mandated medical procedure which was ordered by a court judge, he must pay for services offered by the psychiatric hospital.
Roy Gilbert did breach the contract with attorneys Akins and Pettitte because there was no contract to settle that ever came into force between him and the lawyers. The general legal principle is that a person cannot breach a contract to which they are not a party. The privity of contract doctrine also bars one from enforcing a contract to which they are not a party.
In this case, I think the court should find that Smith did not properly disaffirm the contract with Bobby Floars Toyota. The general legal principle of the law of contract is that while a minor has the right to disaffirm a contract after reaching the age of majority, they have to do so within a reasonable period of time (Miller & Jentz 196). The minor is required to show their intent to disaffirm either by their actions or through a verbal declaration. Smith disaffirmed the contract with Floars 10 months after turning 18. This period is too long to be reasonable.
The court should decide that Hunter is not entitled to lost wages because she did not provide any consideration for Haye’s promise to hire her. The general rule of contract law is that for an agreement to be legally binding, the parties must provide something of value in exchange for the promise by another party. In this case, Hunter did not provide any consideration in exchange for Haye’s promise for a job and hence it was not enforceable.....................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY