Bus. Law Paper Rewrite
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Baruch College, CUNY *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1001
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by MateFlag13001
Rewrite
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 31, 2023
TO: K&K, LLP
FROM: Summer Intern
SUBJECT: Eliza’s Case
In the case,
Eliza v. Javier,
the issue revolves around whether Javier formed a binding
contract with Eliza. Javier is a Manhattan based doctor and friend of Eliza’s. He offered to
accompany her on her trip to swim the English Channel so that she would have medical
assistance on stand-by in case of an accident. Eliza happily accepted. Although their emails show
clear offer and acceptance, they lacked consideration because there was no clear and definite
incentive for bargaining. There was a meeting of the minds, capacity, and legality in this
agreement. Under common law, Eliza would lose because past consideration is not consideration.
However, she is likely to win her case under
NY GOL § 5-1105
which states that a promise in
writing signed by the promisor shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation, since
the trial will take place in New York. Therefore, Eliza is likely to win her case against Javier
because GOL 5-1005 applies and takes precedence.
Eliza’s other suit against the company, SwimTrunkz, proves to be valid. The company
guaranteed a “major prize” to the first person from Brooklyn who can swim the English Channel
in their swimsuit and tag them in a picture after completion of the act, so there was a unilateral
contract. While the company can argue that their advertisement was only an invitation to bargain,
Eliza can counter this by referencing the
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
case
which states that a clear and definite ad is a valid contract. By succeeding to complete her swim
on August 1st, and tagging the company in a picture, Eliza entered a contract with the company.
They acknowledged that she was indeed the first person to do so when they reposted her picture
on their page. The parties met all elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration,
meeting of the minds, capacity, and legality. SwimTrunkz was the promisor and made an offer
through their promotional video with consideration as the prize in which Eliza, as the promisee,
accepted once she fulfilled her end of the contract. SwimTrunkz can argue that they used the
term, “major prize” which is ambiguous and so reposting Eliza to their 500,000 followers gave
her free advertisement and constituted a fair prize. However, the time, money, and training that
Eliza underwent to perform this task deserves a much better prize than just acknowledgement on
the brand’s social media. The case
Monica v. Racy Mountain Races
is relevant because Monica
entered a unilateral contract in which she had to win a race for a prize but the company changed
their terms when she almost finished the race. Courts ruled in Monica’s favor because she
deserved better compensation for the work she put in to fly to the location and prepare for the
race. This is similar to Eliza’s case because she deserves better compensation for performing a
challenging and dangerous swim. As a result, Eliza would most likely win her case,
Eliza v.
SwimTrunkz
for breach of contract.
Original Copy
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 31, 2023
TO: K&K, LLP
FROM: Summer Intern
SUBJECT: Eliza’s Case
I am writing to inform you that while Eliza does have a strong case against SwimTrunkz, she
doesn’t have a strong case against Javier. Javier is a Manhattan based doctor and friend of
Eliza’s. He offered to accompany her on her trip to swim the English Channel so that she would
have medical assistance on stand-by in case of an accident. Eliza happily accepted. Although
their emails show clear offer and acceptance, they lacked consideration therefore making their
contract voidable. According to New York Law, a benefit of legally sufficient value to the
promiser is required. Eliza did not offer anything in exchange for Javier’s time and assistance so
a fair bargain was not reached. Additionally, under the common law, promissory estoppel was
not relevant in this case as Eliza did not rely on the medical assistance to embark on her trip and
was able to successfully swim the English Channel without it. There was a meeting of the minds,
capacity, and legality in this agreement. Eliza’s other suit against the company, SwimTrunkz,
proves to be valid. The company guaranteed a “major prize” to the first person from Brooklyn
who can swim the English Channel in their swimsuit and tag them in a picture after completion
of the act. While the term “major prize” proves to be ambiguous, we can assume that the
company was referring to some materialistic good or something of value to the participant of
their campaign. The advertisement was an invitation to begin negotiations and not an offer. By
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
succeeding to complete her swim on August 1st, and tagging the company in a picture, Eliza
clearly entered a contract with the company. They acknowledged that she was indeed the first
person to do so when they reposted her picture on their page. However, SwimTrunkz did not
follow up on their terms because they refused to respond further to Eliza and no prize was
established. Under Section 5 of the FTC, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
commerce” are prohibited. SwimTrunkz knowingly made a deceptive advertisement that is
subject to fraud under the intent of promoting their brand. Eliza only swam the English Channel,
one of the most difficult open-swims in the world, under the promise of the company and put her
physical health in danger. Therefore, Eliza was entitled to a certain level of justifiable reliance,
giving her a strong argument for a suit.
Vokes
is relevant because the defendant in this case,
Arthur Murray Inc., fraudulently induced the plaintiff into taking extra dance classes by making
her believe that she is a good dancer. The statements of Arthur Murray were made actionable for
fraud because he made them with the intention of persuading Vokes to invest $31,000 in dancing
tuition. This can be related to Eliza’s case because both plaintiffs were taken advantage of by a
company and misled into doing an action under a false promise. Therefore, the legality of the ad
can be argued in Eliza’s defense.