LAW_2010_WA5
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Thomas Edison State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
201
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by MinisterLarkPerson814
Please answer the questions posed at the end of this case study in essay form. Each essay will be judged
on the capacity to present strong, logical discussions that support your conclusions. Case Study 1
Lamar Smunt, eccentric millionaire, sends Casimir Roginsky, famous portrait artist, a letter offering to pay Roginsky $500,000 to do a portrait of Smunt’s mother. Roginsky sends back a letter that says: “I’ve had the misfortune of seeing your mother and would need $750,000 before my artistic sensibilities would allow
me to undertake such a harrowing project.” Three hours later, after reflecting upon the sad state of his finances, Roginsky telephones Smunt and says: "I’d be delighted to paint your lovely mother. Destroy my letter without reading it. It was sent by mistake.” Smunt disregards Roginsky’s instructions and reads Roginsky’s letter when it arrives. He becomes enraged at the insult to his mother and refuses to allow Roginsky to do her portrait. Roginsky files a breach of contract suit against Smunt. Discuss Roginsky’s chances of success.
Consider the following topics: ●
Offer and acceptance
●
When can an offer be accepted?
●
When can an offer be revoked?
●
The mailbox rule
●
Traditional acceptance under the rule and a more modern view under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the Restatement
Roginsky's chances of success in his breach of contract suit against Smunt depend on several legal principles related to offer and acceptance, revocation, the mailbox rule, and the interpretation of acceptance under both traditional common law and modern legal frameworks like the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the Restatement.
Firstly, let's address the offer and acceptance. An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a contract that creates the power of acceptance in the offeree. Smunt's letter offering to pay Roginsky $500,000 to paint his mother constitutes a valid offer. Roginsky's response indicating his willingness to paint Smunt's mother for $750,000 can be seen as a counteroffer, which is essentially a rejection of the original offer and the simultaneous making of a new offer. However, Roginsky's subsequent phone call expressing his willingness to proceed with the original terms of the offer can be construed as an acceptance of Smunt's initial offer.
The crucial issue arises with regard to the revocation of the offer. Under common law principles, an offer can generally be revoked at any time before it is accepted, provided that the revocation is communicated to the offeree. In this case, Roginsky attempted to revoke his counteroffer by instructing Smunt to destroy his letter without reading it. However, Smunt disregarded these instructions and read the letter, effectively
nullifying Roginsky's attempted revocation. Therefore, Roginsky's initial counteroffer remained open for acceptance until Smunt rejected it.
Furthermore, the mailbox rule states that acceptance is generally effective upon dispatch, meaning that once an acceptance is properly mailed, it is effective even if the offeror never receives it. However, there is an exception to this rule when the offeror specifies a particular method of acceptance or when the offeree knows or should know that acceptance should not be effective until received. In this case, since Roginsky instructed Smunt to destroy the letter without reading it, it could be argued that Roginsky
intended for his acceptance to be effective only upon receipt and not upon dispatch.
Considering the modern view under the UCC and the Restatement, acceptance is generally effective upon dispatch unless the offer specifically requires receipt for acceptance. However, this may not apply in
situations where the offeree has expressly indicated otherwise, as Roginsky did by instructing Smunt to destroy the letter without reading it.
In conclusion, Roginsky's chances of success in his breach of contract suit against Smunt hinge on the interpretation of the offer, acceptance, revocation, and the application of the mailbox rule. While Roginsky's initial counteroffer may have been effectively revoked, his subsequent acceptance over the phone could potentially be considered valid, depending on how the court interprets his instructions regarding the letter. Ultimately, the outcome of the case will depend on the specific facts presented and the legal principles applied by the court.
Please answer the questions posed at the end of this case study in essay form. Each essay will be judged
on the capacity to present strong, logical discussions that support your conclusions. Case Study 2
Wombat entered into an oral employment contract with Tony’s Toy Company. Tony’s has orally agreed to hire Wombat for 3 years as a district manager. Wombat quit his job, sold his house, and moved his wife and five children to another state in order to start the new job. One month later, Tony’s informed Wombat that things weren’t working out and that his job was terminated. ●
Is this contract enforceable under the Statute of Frauds? Remember to carefully read the Statute of Frauds as it specifically relates to oral contracts.
●
Is it enforceable under any other theory under which Wombat may recover damages from
Tony’s Toy Company?
●
Are there ethical considerations that apply to this case?
The enforceability of the oral employment contract between Wombat and Tony’s Toy Company, the potential for recovery damages from Tony's Toy Company under other theories, and the ethical considerations inherent in this case merit careful examination.
Firstly, regarding the enforceability of the contract under the Statute of Frauds, it's important to note that while the Statute of Frauds generally requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable, there are exceptions. One such exception is the doctrine of part performance, which allows oral contracts that have been partially performed to be enforced to the extent of the performance rendered. In this case, Wombat quit his job, sold his house, and relocated his family in reliance on the oral employment contract with Tony’s Toy Company. This significant act of reliance and performance could potentially qualify as part performance, rendering the contract enforceable despite its oral nature.
Secondly, even if the contract is not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, Wombat may still have legal recourse under other theories such as promissory estoppel or detrimental reliance.
Promissory estoppel arises when one party relies on the promise of another to their detriment, and the promise is enforced to prevent injustice. In this case, Wombat relied on Tony’s oral promise of employment to his detriment by quitting his job, selling his house, and uprooting his family. Therefore, Wombat may be able to recover damages from Tony’s Toy Company based on the principle of promissory estoppel.
Furthermore, the doctrine of detrimental reliance, similar to promissory estoppel, allows for recovery when one party detrimentally relies on the promises or representations of another. Wombat's actions in quitting his job and relocating his family can be seen as detrimental reliance on Tony’s promise of employment, thereby potentially entitling him to damages.
Lastly, ethical considerations are paramount in this case. Tony’s Toy Company made a commitment to Wombat by offering him a three-year employment contract. Wombat, in turn, made life-altering decisions based on this promise. Tony’s abrupt termination of Wombat's employment after only one month not only breaches the contract but also disregards the significant impact on Wombat's life and the well-being of his family. Ethically, Tony’s Toy Company has a responsibility to fulfill its promises and consider the welfare of its employees. The company's actions in this case raise questions about fairness, integrity, and respect for commitments.
In conclusion, while the oral employment contract may face challenges under the Statute of Frauds, Wombat may still have legal avenues for recovery based on doctrines like promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance. Ethically, Tony’s Toy Company's actions in terminating Wombat's employment shortly after his relocation raise concerns about its commitment to its employees and the broader implications of such actions on individuals and their families.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help