Contract for the supply of lunch by McDonalds Fast Foods
This is a contract I entered into with the McDonalds Fast Food for the delivery of lunch every Saturday during my stay in High School. The legal issues herein include the following. One, the fact that I was under eighteen being only seventeen. This means I was entering into the contract as a minor. It, therefore, introduces the question as to whether the contract was for necessaries or not. Given that lunch was availed at the school kitchen, it made the contract fall out of the province of necessaries. Secondly, the contract was entered on a gentleman agreement, devoid of any legal documentation. Both parties signed a hurriedly drafted document. This introduces a legal question as to contract’s legality.
Nonetheless, I find the subject matter falling under a contract that would be void at the option of the offeror. This is because the relation had an offer, acceptance and consideration. The offer is the service or product that has to be delivered for effective performance to be assumed. The acceptance refers to the undertaking that could be active or passive by the other party to take the offer, rely on it and pay consideration for the same. The consideration is the payment either in cash of kind that the offeror pays the offeree for the received offer. In the relation in question, the offer was the undertaking to deliver lunch by McDonalds every Saturday during my stay in High School. The acceptance was my taking of this offer, reliance on the same and payment for it. The consideration was the money I parted with in return for the received delivery.
If I were to enter the contract now given the additional contract knowledge I have received, I would approach it differently. For starters, the contract fell under the province of voidable contracts at the option of the weaker party. This is because of my status as an underage that denies me contractual capacity. The food was not a necessity and would not be excused by the rule of necessities. I would, therefore, would have been reluctant to pay my bills given the contract was illegal per see as it was between one party that ordinarily enjoys no contractual capacity and another party that has contractual capacity. In addition, given the parity in contractual capacity, it is evident that one party was weaker and the other stronger in the engagement. This should have been remedied as the law of contract envisions a scenario where both parties have equal strengths and bargaining ability. To navigate this situation, I would have engaged McDonalds through my teacher who being an adult had the full contractual capacity and could act on my behalf.
This contract raises ethical issues that go into the spirit of contract of necessities. How practical is the implementation? One has to interrogate the spirit of the law in making voidable contracts outside the province of necessities and why entities and persons still disrespect that provision and engage in contracts with parties that do not have contractual capacity. The ethical question that comes is the utility of this law and whether it meets society’s needs. My position is that the provision is good for it protects weaker parties with lower bargaining powers from exploitation by stronger parties.
References
Emerson, R. W. (2009). Business Law. New York: Barron's Educational Series.
MacMillan, C., & Stone, R. (2012). Elements of Law of Contract. University of London International Programmes, 1-245.
Peter, E. (2009). The Modern Law of Contract: Eighth Edition (8 ed.). London: Routledge.
