Concepts and Standards of Contract Law

Part 1

The first feature is an offer. This could be conceptualized as a proposal made to a person or entity and could be inclusive of the details of the said engagement – i.e. the terms and conditions. The second feature is acceptance. This could be conceptualized as a declaration by the party embracing the offer that he or she is not averse to being bound by the terms highlighted. An offeree can either accept or reject the offer, i.e. depending on its terms and conditions. Acceptance may be done through email, verbal communication, or through mail. The third characteristic is consideration. Consideration is defined as the ‘item’ of value in the entire engagement, i.e. a property, product, or a service to be exchanged for money. The other feature is capacity. Capacity refers to the capability of an individual to enter into a contract. For instance, one may not enter into a contract with an insane person or a child below the age of the majority. The other characteristic is legality. Both parties need to show legal intent or purpose. The other feature is mutual consent. This has got to do with the parties’ free-willed intention to enter into an arrangement of this nature. Lastly, we have writing – in which case some engagements of this nature ought to be put in writing, i.e. under the Statute of Frauds.

Part 2

I am in favor of promissory estoppel and quasi-contracts. For instance, when it comes to promissory estoppel, Turner (2013) points out that “a party may recover on the basis of a promise made when the party's reliance on that promise was reasonable, and the party attempting to recover detrimentally relied on the promise” (p. 76). This comes in handy as a crucial tool in attempts to avoid an injustice – i.e. by averting a scenario whereby strict adherence to contract rules is likely to trigger results that are unfair. On the other hand, a quasi-contract is in my opinion instrumental in efforts to ensure that a situation does not put one party at a disadvantage. It therefore follows that I am in favor of courts being allowed some ‘wiggle room’ in some scenarios.

Part 3

I think that it would be prudent to have two different sets of contract rules. One set would, for instance, deal with commercial code and the other one with common law principles. I do not think that one single set of rules is ideal. This is more so the case given that scenarios on this front vastly differ.

Part 4

Non-compete agreements should not be illegal. This is more so the case given that they come in handy in attempts to secure the trade secrets as well as other proprietary info of enterprises. To a large extent, companies invest heavily in terms of R&D to come up with unique innovations and ways of doing things. If employees, regardless of their rank, are permitted to deploy the competitive information in their own ventures, such companies would be disadvantaged. Keeping non-compete agreements legal helps assure innovation and a healthy ROI for enterprises. It therefore follows that I would not be upset about being asked to sign a 1-year covenant not to engage in any competition. I would be appreciative of the fact that in the larger sense, this helps foster innovation – and hence better quality of goods and services.