Paper Topic:
The Hoffmans
The Hoffmans The Hoffmans and the representative of Red Owl entered into an oral contract for the purchase of a Red Owl franchise . The agreement appears to be in because it contains the six basic elements of a contract namely : meeting of the minds , offer and acceptance , mutual consideration , performance or delivery , good faith , and no public policy would be violated (Larson a , 2003 The two parties had a meeting of the minds because they reached a mutual agreement that the Hoffmans would be paying for a franchise to operate a
Red Owl store . Then when the Hoffmans offered to pay for a franchise , the Red Owl representative accepted the offer after agreeing on a mutual consideration of 18 ,000 . It was also clear during their initial contact that the Hoffmans could only receive a Red Owl store if they pay the amount of 18 ,000 , thereby setting down the condition of performance or delivery . The fifth element , good faith , should be assumed because it appeared that the Hoffmans did not find any reason to think otherwise . This was why after their initial talk , they immediately sold their bakery business as well as their grocery store , rented a house in the area where they planned to locate the Red Owl store , and made an initial payment 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 selling contraband . For all intents and purposes therefore , the contract , although made orally , should be a binding contract (Larson a , 2003
Meanwhile , the agreement made between the Hoffmans and the Red Owl representative does not fall within the categories which the Statute of Frauds required must be in writing . According to the Statute of Frauds when the contract involves : the transfer of an interest in a piece of land , an assumption of another 's debt , marriage , and an agreement which could not be consummated 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 away since they have already sold 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 2003
In other words , the claim of Red Owl that there was no contract was not valid . However , before the Hoffmans could collect , they bear the burden of proving the existence of the contract . They could do it by coming out with a credible , disinterested witness to the whole thing . The most crucial question , therefore , is : Was there a credible witness to their agreement
References
Larson , A .a (2003 . Contract Law - An Introduction . ExpertLaw Retrieved April 14 , 2008
from HYPERLINK "http /www .expertlaw .com /library /business /contract_law .html http /www .expertlaw .com /library /business...
Not the Essay You're looking for? Get a custom essay (only for $12.99)
