Smoking Gun in December 2005, Actor/Comedian Dave

¶ … Smoking Gun in December 2005, actor/comedian Dave Chappelle was being sued by his manager for breach of contract. The report claimed that the actor and comedian had stiffed his personal manager more than $864,500. Mustafa Abuelhija, the actor's personal manager, filed a breach of contract complaint at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Albuelhija stated that he entered into a management agreement with the comedian though it was never reduced to writing. According to the lawsuit, the actor/comedian fired Albuelhija in a meeting at a hotel in San Francisco after Chappelle returned from an abrupt and mysterious sojourn in South Africa.

Elements of a Contract:

A contract can simply be described as an agreement that is formed when one party makes an offer that is accepted by the other party. However, for the agreement to be regarded as a contract, it must consist of various elements that make it legally binding. Generally, the main elements of a contract are an offer, acceptance, legal purpose or objective, mutuality of obligation, consideration, and competent parties. An offer is described as the manifestation of the intention to enter into a bargain in order to justify the understanding of another person to agree to the bargain and conclude it. In contrast, the acceptance of an offer may involve expression of assent to the terms in the offer or assent to the terms made by the offeree or required by the offer.

In addition to the objective of the contract being for a legal purpose, it also includes the willingness or intention by the parties to enter into an agreement that is legally binding. The mutuality of obligation is defined as the meeting of the minds, which is the mutual understanding of the parties and assent to the manifestation of their agreement. The mutuality of obligation is usually based on the certainty of subject matter, which is the sufficient definition of terms that enable the court to understand the obligations of the parties ("Legal Elements of a Contract," n.d.). As an essential element of a contract, consideration basically states either the benefit to the promisor or a disadvantage to the promise whereas the parties to a contract must be authorized and competent to enter into such an agreement.

Chappelle's Contract:

Based on the lawsuit, Abuelhija invoked the Court's jurisdiction in pursuit of monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in attempts to enforce two oral contracts with David Chappelle. During his tenure as the personal manager of the actor and comedian, Abuelhija stated that he played a critical role in deals that earned Chappelle approximately $10 million. He also claimed that he had an oral contract with Chappelle in which he was to receive 5% of Chappelle's revenue originating from the comedian's personal appearances and 10% of revenue obtained from the entertainment deals executed during this period.

Since the agreement between Chappelle and Abuelhija was an oral contract, the contract is difficult to enforce and to determine its validity. While there is an assumption that oral contracts would not be legally binding from a legal perspective, the oral contracts are indeed legally binding according to the law. Similar to all oral contracts, the main factor in the enforcement and determination of validity of the contract between Chappelle and Abuelhija is proving that the contract was in fact made.

Generally, the determination of the validity of an oral contract requires several essential factors. The main factors that are used to determine the validity of such contracts include witness testimony, course of conduct, and credibility of the parties. The witness testimony is for any other parties that were present at the time the two primary parties made the oral agreement. In contrast, the course of conduct is described as the proven and accepted track record between the two parties that allegedly made the oral contract. The credibility of the parties is an issue of proving that personal statement or action was either credible or incredible.

According to the facts of this lawsuit, the agreement between Chappelle and Abuelhija is valid because of the course of conduct. First, Abuelhija had been involved in most of the deals that generated huge amounts for the actor and comedian to an extent that he was referred to as the jack-of-all-trades ("Ex-Manager to Chappelle," 2005). Secondly, the validity of oral contract originates from the fact that he acted as Chappelle's personal manager for 10 months before he was sacked. As a result, the decision by Chappelle to relieve Abuelhija of his duties shows that an oral agreement had already been established.

Remedies for Breach of Contract:

Since the validity of the contract between Abuelhija and Chappelle has been verified and confirmed, the decision by Chappelle to terminate Abuelhija shows that the comedian/actor violated the oral contract. In this case, the actor/comedian refused to pay his personal manager the agreed amount for all the generated revenues during his tenure. The two major remedies for Chappelle in his breach of contract are damages award or contract equitable remedy (LaMance, 2012). In this case, the damages award may be payment of punitive damages as enforced by the court or specific performance as equitable remedy in which the parties perform the duties of the contract.