¶ … contract is "a set of legally enforceable promises," (p. 304). From this simple definition, it would seem that a verbal contract did indeed exist between the two parties in question. Jacob did tell Henry he would be receiving an extra week of vacation. The form of the contract might be verbal, and the contract might indeed by informal and simple. However, there is a legal contract in this case even if injustice cannot be established. The courts would unfortunately have a difficult time establishing willful breach, although it is possible that Henry would be able to secure his extra week of vacation. There are four cornerstones of contract law. The four elements of contract include the agreement, the consideration, the contractual capacity, and the legal object (p. 304). The agreement is the offer, which in this case is Jacob's offer to grant Henry an extra week of vacation. This case illustrates a unilateral contract, in which Jacob is offering to give something to Henry. Henry's agreement is the acceptance of that offer: which is the extra week of vacation. In this case, there is a consideration -- a promise to do something for Henry. It is not as if Jacob told Henry that he had to complete a certain amount of work in order to earn the vacation. Quite simply, Jacob told Henry that he had already earned the extra week. There is also a clear legal capacity or legal ability on the part of both Henry and Jacob. Jacob could not claim that either he or Henry were not capable of entering into the contract (such as, for instance, claiming one party was drunk at the time).

This case illustrates the condition of promissory estoppel. One party (Jacob) makes a promise knowing that the other party (Henry) will rely on it. The other party (Henry) does rely on the promise of extra vacation time. The only way for Jacob to...

Even if injustice cannot be proven in court, Henry can still sue Jacob under promissory estoppel and potentially receive some kind of financial compensation.
2. A covenant not to compete is a type of contract to restrict trade. A covenant not to compete is not widely used in order to protect consumers, stimulate competition, and avoid conflict with anti-trust law. However, there are some clear circumstances in which covenants not to compete are valid, usable, and enforceable. Covenants not to compete are also called restrictive covenants. There are two types of restrictive covenants: the first pertains to an employee leaving a company that wants to protect its trade secrets; the second involves a fair sale as it does in this case.

"Public policy requires fairness in business transactions, which does not occur when people profit from the sale of a business and then start a new business that destroys the one they just sold," (text, p. 370). Maurice had Todd sign a covenant not to compete that prohibited Todd from opening a similar restaurant within 25 miles of Tasty Burger within a year. Given the terms of the sale, the covenant not to compete is likely to be enforced to protect the fairness of the original transaction. After one year, Todd is free to do what he pleases because it is assumed that Maurice can at that time establish his brand without the burden of Todd's competition.

Covenants not to compete must be enforced thoughtfully. They cannot restrict healthy competition, but they must also not impede legitimate businesses from becoming established. This case illustrates a good covenant not to compete because it has a specific time frame listed in the original contract. It is not as if Maurice expects Todd never to compete; only that Maurice be given…