BUSI 561 Discussion Board 2

What Should You Do About Continuing to Do Business with Don?

He should make an effort to terminate business with Don, seeing that he engaged his 17-year-old son in a contract signing that he is not eligible for. This action goes against the validity of the contract. An attribute for a contract to be valid is that the parties being involved in contract signing have to be competent. This is according to 10 (1) of Contract Act 1959: the parties engaging in the agreement have to be competent with reference to the law and not void (New Zealand Legislation, 2011). Competency is regarded by law to be the ability to be an adult and should not be engaged in contracts if below 18 years; the limit for being an adult. The son is below the age limit for contract signing, this makes the business engagement to come to an end with Don.

With regard to the aspects of the binding contract, the son works for the company as a delivery person and is termed by law to be not viable for contract signing; he does not have contract capacity (Heaton & Pretorius, 2007). He is not an integrate part being regarded as competent to be involved in the agreement. With respect to this, Don has gone against the duty of good faith and fair dealing as he has practiced fraud in execution (Magnuson & Supalla, 2008). This is illegal with regard to the law.

Some principles of application of good faith and fair dealings may not be applied with regard to aspects that impact it. For the establishment of an aspect of good faith and fair dealings, some elements have to be established prior to claiming it (Dana, 2004). First, the parties have to undertake the contract then the parties are to meet the requirements of the contract. These aspects were not fulfilled by the two parties, considering that the mode of payments and time period were not met. This changes the viability of the principles of good faith and fair dealings, making it unviable. There is no bound of fairness and faith in continuing to do business with Don.

With regard to the Christian teachings, Don is not a Christian. He has joined the church through help. Based on Christian principles, he is encouraged to help the less fortunate and not be self-centered. The Bible tends to uphold me supporting my neighbor with no regard to myself. Terminating the business would be quite against the Christian teachings. This is given in Leviticus 25:47-48 that if a person in our midst is rich and another person in the same place is poor and offers himself to live amongst another person or a member of the same community, he keeps the right to be help or redemption.

If You Should Elect to Stop Doing Business with Don, What Legal Causes of Action Might He Bring against Your Company, What Damages or Remedies Might He Seek, and What Legal Defenses Might Your Company Have?

If he decides to end doing business with Don, there are a number of legal practices that Don may use against him. With regard to the Uniform Commercial Code, my business of supplying antioxidants and Don’s purchase of the same happen based on the aspect of good faith (López & Wilson, 2004; Jenkins, 2006). The clause placed and signed in the contract for the parties to act in good faith and practice, fair dealings should be followed. His actions of excluding Don would go against this agreement. In every contract that people sign, there is an element of good faith and fair dealings. Neither parties taking part in the contract should go against the benefits of the other; this is similar to implied contracts where certain aspects come into play without being physically written down. The second part, the parties taking part in the agreement concerned with products, here it is the antioxidants, are supposed to be committed to undertake every possible step to develop the supply of the product. Don is hence favored by this provision.

The contract was a common contract that was applied by competent parties; it adds that there has to be consideration for one party in case other business arises (Armas & Hall, 2010). This common contract binds him to have consideration for Don in the business that they have. The supply of antioxidants to other places should hence not interfere with doing business with Don. His commitment is hence bound by this.

The agreement has no limit. This hence means that the contract is binding and enforceability. The business engaged does not specify the time limit that it is to end; it hence dissuades him from ending the supplying of antioxidants to Don.

Don would be entitled to damages if he goes ahead to terminate the business. The contracts if it comes to an end it would lead to financial implications that would act as punishment for him in not following the contract (Hedley, 2004). The main topic for the contract is unique while settling for the damages follows it.

The promissory estoppel is a law that is practiced and applied so as to make promises of the contract come into applicability. The court will come in to block one party, him in this case, from taking a backward step on the promises that they had made (Ishibashi & Singh, 2011). The agreement that he and Don took part is like a promise that they are bound to; evading it would bring negative implications on me. This is connected to the custom and practice where the two are involved in practices that should be followed based on what they have been undertaking. Don hence tends to gain an advantage from this provision of custom and practice, and he is forced to follow it.

References

Armas J. O., & Hall T. J. (2010). Contracts Are Binding—In Good Times, and Bad? Contractual Impossibility, Material Adverse Change Clauses and Adequate Assurances During Economic Crisis. UCC Law Journal, 284-303. (http://www.chadbourne.com/files/Publication/ff4905c9-68e0-4e54-b80f-7978c8e36fb0/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/40365269-3e00-44c8-bdd3-8000189f4a45/June%202010%20UCCLJ%20Armas%20Hall%20article%20final.pdf)

Dana, S. (2004). The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: A Concentrated Effort to Clarify the Imprecision of Its Applicability in Employment Law. The Tennessee Journal of Business Law, 5(291), 291-309.

Heaton, J., & Pretorius, J. T. (2007). Minors as the payees of cheques. South African Law Journal, 124(1), 112-127. (http://www.sabinet.co.za/abstracts/ju_salj/ju_salj_v124_n1_a8.html)

Hedley, S. (2004). Implied contract and restitution. The Cambridge Law Journal, 63, 435-455.

Ishibashi, M., & Singh, A. (2011). Evolution of common law: promissory estoppel. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 3(4), 170–177.

Jenkins, S. H. (2006). Symposium: Contracting out of the Uniform Commercial Code: Contracting out of Article 2: Minimizing the obligation of Performance & Liability for Breach, 40 Loy. L.A. L. Rev., 40(1), 401-442. (http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2561&context=llr)

López, V. A., & Wilson J. M. (2004). A Practical point-by-point comparison of secured transactions law in the United States and Mexico. Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal, 36(4), 50. (http://www.lvwhb.com/textos/doc6.pdf)

Magnuson, E. J. & Supalla, D. J. (2008). Life with Hoyt: avoiding misrepresentation claims in negotiating settlement agreements. Journal of Law and Practice. Issu. 3.

whole.html

Latest Assignments