The Hoffmans

and the representative of ablaze(p) schnozzle entered into an oral contain for the get of a red-faced schnoz franchise . The transcription appears to be in because it contains the six basic elements of a perplex that is to say : meet of the minds , offer and acceptance , mutual consideration , action or oral communication , good faith , and no public policy would be violated (Larson a , 2003The two parties had a meeting of the minds because they reached a mutual organization that the Hoffmans would be assign for a franchise to operate a bolshie bird of night stock . Then when the Hoffmans offered to pay for a franchise , the ruddy Owl representative accepted the offer after agreeing on a mutual consideration of 18 ,000 . It was also feed during their sign contact that the Hoffmans could only receive a deprivati on Owl store if they pay the amount of 18 ,000 , thitherby setting down the condition of performance or tar . The fifth element , good faith , should be put on because it appeared that the Hoffmans did non find all reason to think different than . This was why after their initial talk , they immediately change their bakehouse business as well as their foodstuff store , rented a house in the area where they mean to subside the Red Owl store , and made an initial defrayment for the site of the store . Finally , operating a Red Owl franchise store would not be violating any public policy unless the business would be marketing calamitous . For all intents and purposes therefore , the contract , although made by news of m come forthh , should be a binding contract (Larson a , 2003Meanwhile , the agreement made between the Hoffmans and the Red Owl representative does not come in within the categories which the portrait of Frauds required must be in writing . harmonise to t he Statute of Frauds when the contract invol! ves : the withdraw of an interest in a piece of land , an sup note of another s debt , marriage , and an agreement which could not be fulfil within twelve months , the contract must be in writing for it to be enforceable . The agreement between the parties in the case could be performed by the mere payment of 18 ,000 which the Hoffmans are in the position to perform right aside since they have already interchange their businesses . Since it also does not fall under the three other categories specified by the Statute of Frauds , their agreement could therefore be enforced by a court of law (Larson b 2003In other words , the remove of Red Owl that there was no contract was not valid . However , forward the Hoffmans could collect , they bear the agitate of proving the existence of the contract . They could do it by coming out with a credible , liberal witness to the whole affair . The most crucial interrogative , therefore , is : Was there a credible witness to their agreemen tReferencesLarson , A .a (2003 . Contract Law - An accounting entry . ExpertLaw Retrieved April 14 , 2008from HYPERLINK hypertext manoeuvre protocol /www .expertlaw .com / program library /business /contract_law .html http /www .expertlaw .com /library /business...If you want to get a all-inclusive essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper