Legal reasoning analysis of a candy store transaction fact pattern

Legal

The facts of the case are as follows. Fran owns a candy store, and Ed is a friend of hers. Normally, Ed would enter the store almost daily and buy one or two candy bars. On the day in question, he took the candy bar without purchasing it. Ed waved the candy at Fran, but did not say a word and did not produce payment for the candy bar before walking out.

The issue at hand is whether Ed owes Fran money for the bar. He did not pay for the bar, and therefore it can be questioned whether Ed and Fran had some sort of implied agreement either for Ed to receive the bar for free, or for Ed to make payment to Fran at a later date. In an implied contract, it is the conduct of the parties, rather than their words, that defines the terms of the implied contract.

There are three rules for the establishment of an implied contract. The first is whether the plaintiff furnished some service or property. This is the consideration part of the contract. In this case, the item in question is the candy bar. The plaintiff did not explicitly furnish the candy bar, but rather had the candy bar on display for sale in her store. The second rule for the establishment of an implied contract is whether or not the plaintiff expected to be paid for that property (the candy bar), and whether the defendant should have known that payment was expected. Given the history of the events between Ed and Fran, it is reasonable that Fran would have expected payment. Ed had always paid before. In addition, Fran did not offer the bar to Ed; Ed simply took it. The bar was on display, offered by Fran for sale to anybody who wanted to purchase it. Ed would have been aware of this, and he would have been aware that he normally paid for his candy bars.

The third rule for the establishment of an implied contract is that the defendant had a chance to reject the services and did not. In this case, it was the defendant, Ed, who offered to take the candy bar. Fran did not offer the candy bar to Ed and expect payment later. Ed showed Fran the bar, but did not offer Fran money. If Ed had offered Fran a dollar bill and had this offer rejected, then there would be a stronger case for an implied contract. In this situation, however, Fran never had any opportunity to decline payment, and may not have been given adequate opportunity to ask Ed for payment before he left.

There are three rules, and the facts can be applied to each. The first rule is not upheld, because Fran never explicitly offered the candy bar to Ed. The second rule is upheld, because Fran expected to be paid, and Ed would have known this. The third rule would not be upheld because Fran never had an opportunity to reject payment. As such, the facts of the case when applied to the rules governing implied contracts, show that there was no implied contract for Ed to receive a free candy bar from Fran.