The situation in which John Jacobs and the local Chevrolet car dealer find themselves is a dire one. The two parties sign a contract that is both binding and legal. Both parties have an obligation to honor the conditions that have been set in the contract that they entered into together. John Jacobs breaches the contract that was signed when he is unable to pay the local Chevrolet dealer when he blatantly refuses to perform his obligations of the contract that he was to pay for the monthly instalments. In this case, John Jacobs is the defaulting party and the local Chevrolet dealer is the aggrieved party. In this situation, both parties have sued the other party for instances of the breach of the contract that the parties signed. The first instance is whereby the car dealer sues John for the three payments that John has failed to pay. In this scenario, the court will force John Jacobs to pay the car dealer the exoneration fees- the fees that are paid to the aggrieved party after one of the contracting partners fails to perform the duties that are required of him or her as stipulated by the contract. In this scenario, John Jacobs was unable to pay the monthly installments. The court could also award the aggrieved party a claim for quantum merit in that the court may decide to calculate the amount of money that the car dealer would have earned from using the car or the ploughed back profits from the initial sale of the car and the inconvenience caused by John Jacobs.
The second lawsuit will result in a court not invalidating the contract as all parties were aware of the conditions that had been set up for the contract. The court will rule that the local car dealer did not breach the contract and is, therefore, not liable to any refund of the money that John Jacobs had paid.
In the second scenario between Jack and Jill and the mechanic, the mechanic will win the lawsuit. The mechanic wins because both parties enter into a binding contract that the mechanic fixes an extra or false gas tank and the other party is not supposed to use the false tank for illegal purposes. The mechanic will win the lawsuit because Jack and Jill refuse to honor the contract thinking that the contract is not unenforceable by the court yet the contract is legal and can be enforced by a court of law. The court ruling will depend on whether there was a contract, of which there was, whether the agreements in the contract were broken and whether the person responsible for the loss of the money by the mechanic was the defendant (Jack and Jill).
NOW THIS DEED OF CONTRACT WITNESSES THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
1. The Contract shall come into effect immediately and it will continue being binding until the final conclusion of the supply or cancelled by Boston coffee shop. This ensures that the time for the duration of the contract is stipulated.
2. That Boston coffee shop reserves the power to change their location of the delivery site for any reason and Joe’s Coffee Supply shall be answerable for supplying the materials at the new location. This contract provision enables the coffee purchaser to ensure that the coffee is supplied at any location of the business
3. That the value and magnitude of the supplies shall be as per requirement given by Boston coffee shop as well as testers provided by Joe’s Coffee Supply and approved by Boston coffee shop. This provision ensures that the quality of the coffee supplied is of a high quality.
4. That Joe’s Coffee Supply shall be fully responsible for delivery of the supplies in decent state at the stated location of Boston coffee shop concluded supply invoices in triplicate.
5. That the goods rejected by the representative(s) of Boston coffee shop shall be replaced by Joe’s Coffee Supply and Joe’s Coffee Supply shall bear all perils/costs of the resources disallowed by Boston coffee shop.
6. That the transportation of the goods shall be made by Joe’s Coffee Supply on the day that the representative(s) of Boston coffee shop check quality control. Representative(s) of Boston coffee shop will accompany the properties from the value control check to the site of conveyance. Any product which is not accompanied by the representative(s) of Boston coffee shop will not be accepted.
In the case of John vs Twitter, john can file his lawsuit in Massachusetts. This is because all the contracts are governed by the laws of the land, and this means that they can be enforced in any part of the country. On the issue of whether, John Smith will win the lawsuit is dependable on the agreed upon terms of service. If Twitter is found to have violated the terms of service, then John will win the lawsuit.
