MilestoneTwoTemplate1copy

BUS 206 Milestone Two Template***NOTE FROM BABYDOLL: This doesn’t address whether or not Sam and the chain store meet the four elements of a contract: agreement, consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object. It discussed contracts, quasi-contracts, and promissory estoppel but doesn’t apply it to the cases. I have added the pieces I came up with for the document.  à The first element of agreement exists because Sam and the chain store had a verbal acknowledgement that Sam would ship 1,000 units. The second element of consideration is one-sided. Sam acknowledged what he would give, but there is not any info in the case that suggests what he will get in return for the 1,000 units. The third element of contractual capacity exists because Sam is of legal age and is mentally capable of engaging in a contract. The fourth element of a legal object does not exist in this scenario.ContractsFor a contract to be considered varied it should have the following elements#; offer, acceptance, intention to create a legal relationship, certainty and finally the capacity to accomplish it. From my analysis of the cases, the tenant informed the landlord that he was working on an invention. The silence from the landlord meant that he had no problem with that, therefore there was an offer, acceptance, and an intention to build a lawful relationship (Mohamed, 2014). To finalize the contract both the parties are of age, therefore, have the capacity to enter an agreement. Therefore the agreement meets the standards of a contract. A quasi-contract is an agreement that is created by the courts and follows the legal terms but the involved parties do not totally concur with its terms. Such agreements are created to save the courts the trouble of solving contract disputes. When the court legalizes an act it is difficult to take it back there whenever there is disagreement.There are cases of a promissory estoppel (Hadfield, & Bozovic, 2016). The term refers to a contract that is anchored on informal promises. When a promisor makes a promise to the promisee as it was the case between Sam Stevens and the national chain store respectively, then the promisor is punishable by the law if he does not fulfill the promise within the agreed period.In the first case, Sam is seen to have breached the contract as follows; he is just a tenant, the main purpose of being a tenant is for residential purpose. He did not rent a workshop, therefore, he was wrong turning a residential home into a workshop (Horowitz, 2014). On the other side, he is justified because any tenant has the freedom to do anything within his house so long as he does not cause any discomfort to the neighbors.  In this case, we have no case of any neighbor complaining about the security devise therefore he was right.The landlord does not have the right to evict Sam.  The landlord should have provided enough evidence that there were complaints from other tenants. You cannot send off your tenant basing on your assumption, they also have their rights (Horowitz, 2014). In addition to that when Sam was occupying the building he informed the landlord of his plans of innovating a security device. If he was against it he could have stopped the process immediately.In summary the key defences Sam may use if the landlord tries to evict him include; he informed the landlord of his plans earlier enough, the innovation was there to safeguard his property and those of other tenants, other tenants had not complained about the security device, and all tenants have freedom to do anything in their houses so long as they do not damage the building in the process.  ReferencesMohamed, S. I. (2014). Breached Lease Can Be Torn Up: When Tenant or Landlord May Cancel a Contract.Horowitz, H. (2014). Liability of Landlord in Tort for Injuries Suffered on Leased Premises–Proposed Statutory Change.St. John’s Law Review,6(1), 11.Hadfield, G. K., & Bozovic, I. (2016). Scaffolding: Using Formal Contracts to Support Informal Relations in Support of Innovation.Wis. L. Rev., 981.