Since time immemorial, the conduct of two or more parties in business transactions has been one of a warring nature. This led to the inception of contract law so as try to iron out any friction that might arise during the usual business transactions. Contract law was created with an aim of governing all the essential practices during the enforcement of a contract. Categorically, contract law has continuously grown to encompass emergent issues that include the obligation of an employer to the actions of an employee and that of a minor in the entering into a contract. Additionally, other implied aspects of good faith have been added to the law of contract over the years. To this end, this paper aims to look into the case of Don, minor’s ability to contract, and fraudulent contracting. Particularly, the paper will look into whether the respective business should terminate business transactions and if Don has any legal remedies towards the business.
In this perspective, a contract’s definition does not necessarily end with a solid signing of a document. However, aspect of implied conduct leads to the rise of an implied contract between parties. An implied contract is whereby parties behave in a manner likely to suggest that they are in a contract. In the case of Don and the business, there exists an implied contract due to the respective behavior between the business and Don. This contract arose the moment that the business continuously supplied Don the required merchandise for a given duration. Additionally, acts of good faith similar to the treatment of loyal customers have been shown to Don. For example, the business does not charge interest to Don despite the fact that it is at their liberty to do so. However, acts of good faith should not be termed as being of an express nature to the sealing of an agreement. This aspect was established in the case of Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc. According to the case, the aspect of good faith, although originally, accepted could not be termed as a binding part to a contract. This is based on the fact that all contracts are privy to acts of good faith. This is based on the fact that one cannot enter into a contract with another party in case of the existence of bad faith.
As such, the business should not continue engaging into a contract with Don on the basis of good faith. Additionally, Don had voided the aspect of good faith in existence. This was in the case that Don fraudulently allowed the son to sign the contract. This was under the disguise that the contract pertained to normal business transactions while other aspects and agendas were hidden in the contract. Don was taking advantage of the fact that employees can be taken as representing the owners in the course of carrying out a business’s activities. Based on these fraudulent activities, the business should cease carrying out any business transactions with Don. From his behavior, it has been established that he cannot be trusted. Furthermore, during the inception of the contract, the original basis was that of a ‘new’ individual; one transformed by Christianity.
Accordingly, Don might go to court to seek out certain aspects pertaining to contract law. One of the remedies that he might try to avail to himself is that of specific performance. Under this remedy, it is prerequisite that one party continues to carry out the required acts in a contract. In this case, this remedy provides that the business continues to supply goods to Don on the basis of the contract signed by the son on behalf of the business. Additionally, Don might seek compensatory damages on the basis of expected losses. This is based on the fact that a withdrawal of the business supplies without substitution would result to losses on Don’s part as his customers would go without any supply.
However, despite Don’s accusations, there exist various loopholes in his presumed contract. One such loophole is the fact that Don voided the existence of good faith between the business and himself. This was in the case that Don fraudulently allowed the owner’s son to sign a contract on behalf of the business without informing the father. Additionally, the fact that the contract was factually fraudulent automatically voids the existing relationship between the firm and Don. A fraudulent contract is where on party enters into a contract on the basis of some misleading facts. The party thinks that the contract is for other totally different facts. In the case of Don, he allowed the son to sign a contract on the disguise that the contract governed the normal business transactions. Additionally, a minor is not allowed to enter into certain contracts without the necessary guidance. For example, in the case of Don, he had fraudulently allowed a minor to sign a contract for a business without necessarily informing the parents. As such, the contract is null and void.
In a nutshell, contract law was designed to provide guidelines as to the behavior of parties to a contract. The necessity of contract law was derived from the untrustworthy nature of humanity during normal business transactions. In particular, not every individual enters into a contract on the basis of good faith. In addition, it is essential that minors should be protected from exploitation by seniors. Without contract law, fraudulent acts by individuals like Don would provide benefits at the expense of the innocent party.
References
Meilsik. (2003). Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc. Retrieved february 3, 2013, from www.meislik.com: http://www.meislik.com/cases/sons_thunder_v_borden/
New Jersey Supreme Court. (1997). SONS OF THUNDER INC v. BORDEN INC. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from caselaw.findlaw.com: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1310679.html
Soulsby, J., & Marsh, S. B. (2002). Business Law (8, illustrated ed.). Gloucestershire: Nelson Thornes.
Wardman, K., Pendlebury, N., & Abbot, K. t. (2007). Business Law. London: Cengage Learning EMEA.
