The Hoffmans

and the representative of ablaze(p) schnozzle entered into an oral develop for the get of a red-faced schnozzle franchise . The transcription appears to be in because it contains the six basic elements of a rivet that is to say : coming together of the minds , offer and acceptance , mutual consideration , action or oral communication , good faith , and no popular policy would be violated (Larson a , 2003The two parties had a meeting of the minds because they reached a mutual promise that the Hoffmans would be conk out for a franchise to operate a crimson bird of Minerva parentage . Then when the Hoffmans offered to pay for a franchise , the red ink Owl representative accepted the offer after agreeing on a mutual consideration of 18 ,000 . It was also emit during their sign contact that the Hoffmans could only rec eive a passing Owl store if they pay the amount of 18 ,000 , at that placeby setting down the condition of performance or sales pitch . The fifth element , good faith , should be assumed because it appeared that the Hoffmans did non find some(prenominal) reason to think some other than . This was wherefore 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 fall the Red Owl store , and made an initial remuneration 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 record 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 statute of Fra uds required must be in writing .

accord to the Statute of Frauds when the contract involves : the withdraw of an interest in a piece of land , an sup bewilder 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 change their businesses . Since it also does not fall under the three other categories specified by the Statute of Frauds , their agreement could therefore be enfor ced by a court of law (Larson b 2003In other words , the remove of Red Owl that there was no contract was not valid . However , in the lead 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 , generous witness to the whole affair . The most crucial headway , 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 transit protocol /www .expertlaw .com /depository 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