Contract Is \"A Set of Legally Enforceable

¶ … 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 avoid injustice is to fulfill the promise. 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 the chance to compete himself as a term of the sale.

3. According to the text, "offers, once made, do not last forever. At some point in time, they terminate," (p. 329). Lapse of time is one of the core instances an offer will terminate in law. A "reasonable amount of time" is determined and in this case clearly a reasonable amount of time is linked directly to the day the offer is made. Two weeks is too long for a commodity market offer to remain valid. Moreover, both parties are members of the oil industry and therefore fully aware of the fluctuating price of the commodity. There is no possible way either party was unaware of the fact that crude oil prices fluctuate on a near day-to-day basis.

Therefore, the original offer had an unequivocal time stamp that did not necessarily need to be spelled out in the original faxed offer. Even if it were spelled out, the offeror "has the right to revoke the offer at any time before it has been accepted," (p. 332). It might have been better if Alpha Oil had specified an expiry date for the offer in terms of it leading to no possible dispute, but the courts will still side with them in this case. "Even if the offer states that it will be held open for a set period," the offerer does have the power to revoke (text, p. 331).

Thus, Alpha has the upper hand in this case and is certainly not bound by their original offer. Zeno's acceptance is invalid because too much time has lapsed. In Adone v. Paletto, the importance of conditions is outlined. Time frames bind both parties to the contract. In a bilateral contract especially, there is nothing that Zeno did that would cause Alpha to be beholden to fulfilling the original offer. The offer was simply an offer to sell at a certain price at a certain time. Because both the original offer and the acceptance offer were faxed, they are also instantaneous forms of communication. The courts would have no trouble siding with Alpha in this case.

4. Unfortunately for Sally, there is nothing she can do. Once Sally agreed to pay the $300, she was willingly accepting Polly's offer. The courts would agree that both parties were legally capable of entering into the contractual agreement. Sally will claim that she was ignorant at the time of purchase, but that will not preclude the courts from siding with Polly. It is not as if Polly drugged Sally before persuading her that $300 was a reasonable amount. Sally is responsible for researching the used computer marketplace and making the decision on her own.