Business Law EssayPlace 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 Research Paper
Business Law Q & A
The main reason the court might not enforce this contract is that the contract lacked sufficient consideration and was contrary to public policy. It was hence void and unenforceable under state law. For a contract to be valid and enforceable, both parties to the agreement must furnish sufficient consideration. Consideration refers to the promises which the parties to a contract exchange or something of value which one party to the contract forbears or parts with and what the other receives in benefit. In the present case, the parties decided to form a joint venture or association in which members agreed to contribute to a pool of funds which they would use to purchase tickets. Whereas the contributions from the members constituted consideration, the Hughes group did not furnish consideration and hence cannot expect to benefit from the purchase of the tickets by the Coles.
Furthermore, the contract is contrary to state law which voids on the ground of illegality any contract involving gaming as was the case here. The contract is contrary to public policy since it involves illegal gaming activities in which only some parties to the agreement benefit depending on luck and hence prejudicing other members of the association. One of the important elements of a valid contract is legality and hence courts will not normally enforce contracts that are illegal or against public policy as is the case in Hughes v. Cole case. Since the contract between parties was such that despite contributions into the pool, only one group would benefit from the proceeds, it not only lacked consideration but was also contrary to public policy since it would amount to manifest injustice and unfairness to the parties. According to Stone, contracts such as those involving gaming were considered as unenforceable though not necessarily illegal at common law (373). Hence, as is the case in Hughes v. Cole, the contract might not be enforced by the court for being contrary to public policy and unfair...........................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY