Law 421
Individual Paper
Mary made an offer to Liam and Mike for them to paint her house for $2500. There is no statement on whether or not they verbally accepted her offer which in this case does not make it an agreement. It makes it an offer and since Mary saw Bill’s advertisement, which is considered an offer, and by her calling and making arrangements with Bill’s she accepted his offer.
Mike and Liam can say that Mary is in breach of contract but in fact no acceptance was made on their part. How did they know what time to arrive? Or what color to paint the house? Since acceptance is what makes the offer an oral agreement and a binding contract, no match was made to the offer. When Mary made the offer to pay $2500 for Mike and Liam to paint her house, they should have responded by accepting her offer and even could have bargained by her paying them the money plus supplies.
Mary should be the one to win in this case for the fact that her offer was not accepted initially at the time she offered it and therefore is not legally bound to pay them anything. However they could be considered as trespassing and destruction of property since they were on her property without her initially consent. Since they did not agree at the time she was unaware that they would be showing up. She in this case can be considered a consumer looking for the best deal. She offered the job to Mike and Liam and the next day found a better offer. She is allowed to change her mind as to who is to paint her house. For example, it would be no different if Mary had offered to watch Mike’s child for $5 an hour. The offer was made but Mike is not required to bring his child to Mary and pay her if Jane will watch the same child for $2.50 an hour plus feed the child at no additional cost to Mike.
References
Melvin S.P. (2011), The Legal Environment of Business A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice New York, NY McGraw Hill Irwin.
Shefrin, D. (2006). Contracts: Deal or no deal?
Mary made an offer to Liam and Mike for them to paint her house for $2500. There is no statement on whether or not they verbally accepted her offer which in this case does not make it an agreement. It makes it an offer and since Mary saw Bill’s advertisement, which is considered an offer, and by her calling and making arrangements with Bill’s she accepted his offer.
Mike and Liam can say that Mary is in breach of contract but in fact no acceptance was made on their part. How did they know what time to arrive? Or what color to paint the house? Since acceptance is what makes the offer an oral agreement and a binding contract, no match was made to the offer. When Mary made the offer to pay $2500 for Mike and Liam to paint her house, they should have responded by accepting her offer and even could have bargained by her paying them the money plus supplies.
Mary should be the one to win in this case for the fact that her offer was not accepted initially at the time she offered it and therefore is not legally bound to pay them anything. However they could be considered as trespassing and destruction of property since they were on her property without her initially consent. Since they did not agree at the time she was unaware that they would be showing up. She in this case can be considered a consumer looking for the best deal. She offered the job to Mike and Liam and the next day found a better offer. She is allowed to change her mind as to who is to paint her house. For example, it would be no different if Mary had offered to watch Mike’s child for $5 an hour. The offer was made but Mike is not required to bring his child to Mary and pay her if Jane will watch the same child for $2.50 an hour plus feed the child at no additional cost to Mike.
References
Melvin S.P. (2011), The Legal Environment of Business A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice New York, NY McGraw Hill Irwin.
Shefrin, D. (2006). Contracts: Deal or no deal?
References: Melvin S.P. (2011), The Legal Environment of Business A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice New York, NY McGraw Hill Irwin. Shefrin, D. (2006). Contracts: Deal or no deal? PT, 14(7), 34.