7-2 Activity Document PDF

Preview

Summary

this is a project for the english course...

Description

Contract Law between The Friendly Dawg and Landlord Lou There are 4 elements that must be met to have a valid contract according to the text (Kubasek, 2021). The first element is a valid offer, the second is, was there consideration, the third element is does contractual capacity exist and the fourth element is, does the legal object violate the law or public policy. In the case of The Friendly Dawg and Landlord Lou, there was an offer made from Landlord Lou to The Friendly Dawg, that was accepted by Dave Dawgs’ father before he passed away. At the time of his death the business passed on to Dave Dawgs. They had a written lease that specifically stated it was a pet supply store only and nothing about selling live animals. As for consideration, The Friendly Dawg would pay to lease the space provided by Landlord Lou. Contractual capacity does exist because both parties did enter into a legally binding agreement and according to the scenario it is assumed that Dave Dawgs is of legal age and can assume responsibility for the legal binding agreement. The selling of pet supplies is not illegal, and it is not against public policy. After studying this case, Dave Dawgs has a bilateral contract with Landlord Lou and he breached his agreement, because he never asked to revise the agreement to include live animals. So, he changed the terms of the agreement without the consent of the landlord. He also stopped paying his rent, because there was no air conditioning in an area that was designated as a storage area, that he decided to use to house his live animals. In this case Landlord Lou has every right to evict Dave Dawgs. Dave Dawgs breached the agreement in so many ways before he stopped paying rent. Landlord Lou is not obligated to provide air conditioning to the live animals, because they were not part of the original agreement and no revision were made to the existing contract. In order to solve this problem, Landlord Lou and Dave Dawgs should start with a

negotiation process, in which they each decide what is important to them and what they are willing to give up. In problem solving negotiation, Dave Dawgs would agree to give up the live animals and go back to pet supplies only as in his original agreement and Landlord Lou would agree to add air conditioning to the storage area. Another scenario would be, Landlord Lou would agree to add the air conditioning to the storage area, revise a new lease to include the live animals and would increase the rent. Dave Dawgs would agree to these terms with the rent increase. Contract Law between Sunshine Yoga and Landlord Lou There are 4 elements that must be met to have a valid contract according to the text (Kubasek, 2021). The first element is a valid offer, the second is, was there consideration, the third element is does contractual capacity exist and the fourth element is, does the legal object violate the law or public policy. Sunshine Yoga meets the following elements, a valid offer, consideration, legal object and contractual capacity. Although Sunshine Yoga meets the elements, their contract lacks the proper form, because there is nothing in writing. Although nothing is in writing, there is an implied contract, because Landlord Lou supplied property to Sunshine Yoga, Sunshine Yoga is expected to pay for the property and Sunshine Yoga had an opportunity to reject the property. Sunshine Yoga claims that Landlord Lou violated the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment Law, because the landlord assured the tenant that she would not be disturbed by anyone. The noise from the live animals was disturbing the other tenant and her patrons. Grounds to Evict Yes, Landlord Lou has the right to evict The Friendly Dawg, but I don’t feel he has grounds to evict Sunshine Yoga. As I stated above, Dave Dawgs breached the agreement

between The Friendly Dawg and Landlord Lou when he added live animals to his store, because the lease was only for pet supply store only. He did this without amending his lease agreement and how he did it, it was a disruption to the other tenants.

References Kubasek, N., 2021, Dynamic Business Law, McGraw-Hill

Tort Law Tort Law is a violation of another person’s rights or a civil wrongdoing that is not from a contract or statue (Kubasek, 2021). There are three primary categories of Torts, intentional, negligent and strict liability. The negligent tort is relevant to this case, because The Friendly Dawg exposed Sunshine Yoga to a risk of an accident or injury. Also, strict liability tort applies, because The Friendly Dawg took an action that is dangerous and could not be undertaken safely, by housing live animals and having the snack escape. Sunshine Yoga can file a civil lawsuit against, The Friendly Dawg because they have caused injury to Jasmine, because of the live animals being present and causing conflict. Also, the fact that the snake escaped and was in her studio, being the cause of her heart attack. I don’t think she has grounds to sue Landlord Lou, but she is able to break her implied contract with him because of the circumstances.

References Kubasek, N., 2021, Dynamic Business Law, McGraw-Hill...