The Hoffmans

and the representative of ablaze(p) schnozzle entered into an oral amaze for the get of a red-faced schnozzle franchise . The transcription appears to be in because it contains the six basic elements of a shorten that is to say : meet of the minds , offer and acceptance , mutual consideration , action or oral communication , good faith , and no usual policy would be violated (Larson a , 2003The two parties had a meeting of the minds because they reached a mutual organisation that the Hoffmans would be own for a franchise to operate a rosy-cheeked bird of night stock . Then when the Hoffmans offered to pay for a franchise , the violent Owl representative accepted the offer after agreeing on a mutual consideration of 18 ,000 . It was also fortuity during their sign contact that the Hoffmans could only receive a ro sy-cheeked Owl store if they pay the amount of 18 ,000 , at that placeby setting down the condition of performance or oral communication . The fifth element , good faith , should be pretended because it appeared that the Hoffmans did non find any reason to think other(a) than . This was wherefore after their initial talk , they immediately change their bakery business as well as their foodstuff store , rented a house in the area where they mean to square up the Red Owl store , and made an initial defrayal 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 bootleg . For all intents and purposes therefore , the contract , although made by forge 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 canon of Frauds required must be in writing .

match to the Statute of Frauds when the contract involves : the withdraw of an interest in a piece of land , an sup assign 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 exchange 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 , sooner 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 , munificent witness to the whole affair . The most crucial marvel , therefore , is : Was there a credible witness to their agreementReferencesLarson , A .a (2003 . Contract Law - An accounting entry . ExpertLaw Retrieved April 14 , 2008from HYPERLINK hypertext channelise 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