This paper analyzes the enforceability of a contract in the dispute between Furniture World and Bryant Remodeling, in which Bryant argues it had the right to subcontract work to Kreeky Construction due to an overwhelming workload. The paper reviews the six legal elements required for a valid contract — offer, acceptance, objective, mutuality of obligation, consideration, and competent parties — and surveys recognized contract defenses including mistake, duress, misrepresentation, and frustration of purpose. Applying these principles to the facts, the paper concludes that Furniture World is likely to prevail because Bryant failed to include subcontracting rights in the original agreement and could not invoke commercial impracticability without an explicit contractual provision.
The paper uses a define-then-apply structure common in legal analysis: each doctrine (offer, acceptance, defenses, discharge) is introduced with a formal definition and source citation before being tested against the case scenario. This mirrors the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method used in law school writing, making the reasoning transparent and easy to follow.
The paper opens with a brief statement of the dispute and thesis, then builds legal context through two expository sections covering valid contract elements and available defenses. The analytical core applies those rules to Bryant Remodeling's conduct, addressing the subcontracting issue, commercial impracticability argument, and Furniture World's remedies in turn. A short conclusion distills the practical lesson — specificity in drafting contingency terms — and the reference list closes the paper.
This paper examines the enforceability of a contract as well as several defenses that can void a contract. In the case of Furniture World against Bryant Remodeling, Bryant argues that it had the right to subcontract work because it was overwhelmed with existing obligations. By applying and analyzing the legal elements of a contract and the defenses thereof, Furniture World is likely to win its case against Bryant Remodeling.
A contract is made up of six legal elements: offer, acceptance, objective, mutuality of obligation, consideration, and competent parties. There are two types of contracts: bilateral contracts are a "promise for a promise," and a unilateral contract is a "promise on an act" (Cross 2007).
An offer is defined as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed" — the "offeree" (Treitel 2007). Acceptance of the offer must follow the "mirror-image" rule, whereby the two parties agree on identically specific terms; rejection allows for a counter-offer. Offers and acceptances are limited to the parties that enter into a contract, and the power of acceptance cannot be transferred.
The objective of a contract must be for a legal purpose; a contract that is illegal in nature is not enforceable by law. Mutuality of obligation refers to the parties' "mutual agreement and assent to the expression of their argument" ("Legal Elements of a Contract"). Consideration defines the terms of the agreements made by the parties. The law also stipulates that, in order for a contract to be valid, the parties entering into it must be competent and authorized to do so ("Legal Elements of a Contract").
Recognized defenses to a contract include mistake, incapacity, duress, undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation or fraud, and frustration of purpose. A breach of contract occurs when performance is due but has not been fulfilled. An anticipatory breach occurs when one party enters into an agreement without intending to comply with its obligations.
Legal methods of voiding contracts by the parties include revocation, rejection, counter-offer, and full performance. Methods of voiding contracts by operation of law include lapse of time, destruction of the subject matter, death or incompetence of a party, and illegality.
In order to avoid problems within contracts, specificity is key. Parties should detail contingencies and provide agreement for reasonable remedies in the event that obligations cannot be met as originally planned.
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.