The legal system and contract law

Business Law and Enforcing Contracts

Grace v. Wiley

The valid contract for the sale of the stereo system for $6,000 is enforceable depending on circumstances, such as which party is seeking to enforce it, because it falls within the UCC Statute of Frauds (Freidman, 2005). According to Article II of the UCC, contracts for sale of goods for $5,000 or more are not enforceable without some record (or admission) of the existence of a valid contract (Freidman, 2005).

More specifically, the party wishing to enforce the contract must be able to prove the existence of a written contract signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). In this particular case, the valid contract was signed by Grace but not by Wiley. Therefore, while the contract is otherwise valid, Grace would not be able to enforce it against Wiley or to prevail in an action for any loss of the benefit of the bargain pursuant to a breach or anticipatory breach by Wiley, simply because Wiley accepted the offer verbally instead of in writing. Wiley, on the other hand, could prevail in enforcing the same contract against Grace because her agreement to the contractual terms was memorialized in a writing.

Grace v. Eddie

The contract between Grace and Eddie is for professional services rather than for the sale of goods; therefore, it does not fall under the UCC and it is not one of the other types of contractual agreements that fall within the Statue of Frauds (Freidman, 2005). In principle, the contract is enforceable by each party against the other but subject to the ability of the party filing the claim to prove the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. Where the defendant denies ever entering into the agreement, the contract is, for all intents and purposes, unenforceable only because the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish that a verbal agreement capable of establishing an enforceable contract existed (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

Breach of Contract Issues

In the first case between Grace and Wiley, a breach of contract by Grace is more enforceable from a practical perspective by Wiley than the reverse situation. If the underlying agreement supports a bilateral contractual obligation, Wiley need only produce the signed document evidencing Grace's acceptance of the terms. However, because Wiley never furnished a signed writing, his breach is more difficult for Grace to enforce. Provided the underlying terms are sufficient to create a valid contract but for the Statute of Frauds issue, Grace can still recover against Wiley if Wiley happens to admit to the existence of a contractual agreement in his pleadings or statements under oath (Freidman, 2005). If Wiley breaches, Grace would be seeking the remedy of the compensation for any benefit of the bargain lost, such as where she subsequently ends up paying more for the same product. If Grace breaches, Wiley would be seeking his lost profit from the sale.

In the second case between Grace and Eddie, the contract is equally enforceable by either party subject only to the need to prove its existence. Whichever party files the claim has the initial burden to establish that a valid contract existed (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009). In that regard, any credible evidence such as a tape recording of the original telephone call or of any subsequent calls referring to the existence of the agreement will suffice to establish the existence of a valid enforceable verbal contract for services to be provided by Eddie. Credible testimony in court from witnesses who actually heard the conversation or to whom either party admitted the existence of the agreement would also establish the existence of a valid and enforceable contract (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

If Eddie breaches, Grace would be seeking the remedy of the compensation for any benefit of the bargain lost, such as where she subsequently ends up paying more for the same services. If Grace breaches, Eddie would be seeking his lost profit from the sale of services, in which case he would have to prove that he was unable to rebook the time at the same amount of profit for his time.

Contributory and Comparative Negligence Concepts

By failing to use the crosswalk and by darting out into traffic, the plaintiff was negligent and therefore partially responsible for his own injuries (Freidman, 2005). The driver was also negligent; therefore recovery will depend on state laws with respect to contributory negligence and comparative negligence (Freidman, 2005). Generally, contributory negligence is a common law concept that provides an absolute defense in tort law that extinguishes the responsibility of tortfeasors for harm resulting to a plaintiff who is even partly responsible for his injuries or damages (Freidman, 2005). Because the doctrine can result in unfair outcomes, such as where the plaintiff's negligent responsibility is minimal compared to the defendant's, most American states have adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence instead (Freidman, 2005).