Contract law principles and applications

¶ … agreement with George for the sale of the produce is fraught with problems. First, the incentive for the original sale was the fact that Irma was the owner of the produce supplier. This incentive was based on the familial relationship with Irma and the fact that Irma had offered to sell the produce with a 10% reduction. Once Irma sold the produce store her offer to sell at the reduced price would have been automatically been withdrawn on the basis of impossibility of performance

Additionally, the subsequent owner, George, should have been placed on notice that the pending contract was intended to be finalized with Irma and he should have verified the terms of the order before shipping the goods. The fact that he failed to do so opens the door for the goods to be returned without recourse. The prior relationship with Freshy-Vegies adds support to the fact that there was no contractual relationship with Irma's former business. It adds reinforces the fact that the produce would have never been ordered from Irma's prior shop but for the familial relationship and the 10% reduction. The reality is that there should be no dispute relative to the return of the produce. There was never a meeting of the minds as the amount of the consideration between the seller and buyer was never established

. The buyer believed that he was buying the produce from his sister, Irma, and the produce was being purchased at a price 10% less than the usual cost.

The new owner of Freshy-Vegies could conceivably argue that the facsimile order was the offer and that his sending of the produce served as his acceptance. This position, however, misses a key element of the process due to the fact that the fax order was directed at Irma. This fact should have placed the new owner on notice that there was a problem with the ordering process. Even assuming the new owner may not have noticed that Irma was the intended contracting party, there remains the issue of consideration. The order was placed under the assumption that the produce would be purchased for 10% less than the usual cost and the fact that George is expecting full payment without any reduction is clear evidence that there was no contract to purchase

. Once George shipped the produce and billed for full price he has, in effect, created a new offer. The rejection of the offer can be demonstrated through the return of the produce as soon as possible.

2. Clumsy is in a good position by virtue of his position as an employee. As he was performing his responsibilities in the course of his employment he would be covered by Workers Compensation statutes

. Under such statutes the question of Clumsy's contributory or comparative negligence would not be at issue as Workers Compensation laws do not concern themselves with either concept. Such statutes are concerned only with providing coverage for workers injured in the scope of their employment and the worker's part in the accident is of little concern.

In the event, however, that Worker's Compensation laws do not apply, Clumsy's perceived intoxication would have significant bearing on the negligence issue. The wet floor was likely the cause of Clumsy's fall and, absent Clumsy's apparent intoxication, would have provided Clumsy with a basis for recovery. Unfortunately, however, for Clumsy his intoxication will likely serve to diminish, or completely bar, him from recovery. The application of contributory negligence will require a determination as to the degree of culpability between the negligence of allowing water to remain on the working area and Clumsy's intoxication. The level of Clumsy's intoxication will determine whether or not he can prevail on the negligence claim

. The water may have been a contributing factor in his fall but it may be found that his intoxication was a more significant factor and, therefore, Clumsy's right to recovery would be reduced by his degree of contributory negligence. It is possible that such contributory negligence could rise to the level where his recovery would be completely barred. Such determination would be based on the evidence presented and the trier of fact's balancing of the factors.