law assignment - enforceable contract, legal relations

what does intention to create legal relations means?
what does it mean to say that a contract is enforceable?
what role does intention to creat legal relations play in making a contract enforceable

Greetings!

You can, fortunately, find a lot of information online with regard to contract law. Some of these legal terms are ones which are not used in American law, but I can give you some general advice.

In order for an agreement to be a legally binding contract, it must be made with the intention of creating legal relations; no intent equals no contract.

An enforceable contract is one which would be upheld by a court because it contains all the elements of a contract and its purpose is a legal one. For example, if Mr. Bad Guy makes a contract with Mr. Drug Dealer to buy 10 pounds of cocaine, and Mr. Bad Guy fails to show up with the money to buy the cocaine, Mr. Drug Dealer cannot successfully bring a court action to make Mr. Bad Guy live up to his end of the bargain. A court will not enforce an illegal contract. The contract may exist--that is, it contains all the essential elements of a contract--but it is still not enforceable by a court because its purpose is illegal.

In order for a contract to be enforceable, the parties must have intended to make a contract. Therefore, the "role" that intention to create legal relations plays is essential in making a contract enforceable. The intent of the parties to create legal relations is a question for the trier of fact which must be supported by the evidence.

I hope this helps!

Thanks,

Sarah, EssayForum.com

Hello,

Enforcement of a contract - I'm not 100% sure if I understand the logic, could you please correct me if I'm wrong for the case below:

Alan, of Alan's Used Furniture Company, offered to sell his used couch to Betty at a price of $900 in a letter mailed March 31st with a term of $500 deposit required. The letter arrived at Betty's office on April 2nd when Betty was out of town on a business trip.

Carlo, on April 6th, offered to pay $950 for the same couch that previously offered to Betty. Alan accepted Carlo's offer and the deal was done and signed on April 7th.

On April 20th, Betty resumed work and after reading Alan's offer, she immediately mailed her acceptance with a cheque of $500. On April 21st, Alan heard Betty was now back to work, he called Betty to revoke the offer. Betty's acceptance letter was lost in the mail.

Alan claimed that he has no legal liability to Betty and Carlo.

----
My answer:

Alan's offer letter forms a contract because he has an intent to sell his couch to Betty including a term to ask for deposit, but he didn't specify any time limit for this offer. He can't argue that Betty didn't response within a reasonable time. Betty is unaware of Alan's offer when she's out of town and so she could not send an acceptance. Also, Alan's revocation is invalid because it's reached one day after Betty has sent the acceptance with deposit. Betty's acceptance of offer is valid through her reply by "mirror image" of offer. Alan also has a
"unilateral consideration" which he promises to sell his couch to Betty through the offering letter, especially in a business relationship Alan's intent should be bound by his promises. Thus, Alan is bound to keep his offer open to Betty until a reasonable time (?) Thus, Betty can sue for remedy that she suffered due to Alan's breach of contract. However, Alan has no legal liability to Carlo.

Greetings!

I think you might need to refer to the rules of contract to help you decipher this situation. You said "Alan's offer letter forms a contract because he has an intent to sell his couch to Betty including a term to ask for deposit, but he didn't specify any time limit for this offer." What you're saying is that an offer equals a contract, which isn't true. The offer must be accepted in order for a contract to be formed. So, when an offer is made, how long is it good for? Was Betty's acceptance any good? The rule is that an offer remains open until accepted, unless a time limit is specified in the offer, or until a reasonable time has expired (yes, you're right about that part!).

What about Betty's mailing of her acceptance? Under the mailbox rule, acceptance is effective upon mailing, provided mailing is an acceptable form of acceptance. (If the offer had specified, for example, that Betty must respond by fax, mailing it would not be effective. However, if this case ended up in court, Betty would need to be able to prove that she mailed her acceptance, as it was lost in the mail.) You're right about Alan's revocation being too late, IF Betty had accepted Alan's offer as he proposed it, but under the "mirror image rule," because Betty changed the terms of the offer when she accepted it, her "acceptance" acts as a rejection of the initial offer and becomes an offer which Alan could accept or reject. So, in other words, Betty's acceptance was not effective, so she has no action for breach of contract.

The facts are a little sparse with regard to Carlo; are we to assume that he never got the couch? If he relied to his detriment on Alan's promise, he may be able to recover damages. Certainly, if he actually paid money to Alan, he will get his money back; we don't have enough facts to know, but it certainly looks like Alan has a legal obligation to deliver the couch to Carlo if Carlo paid him.

I hope this helps clear things up!

Thanks,

Sarah, EssayForum.com

Hi Sarah, can I hire you as my private tutor! I read the text & attended the class, yet I still could not clear my head. You're just so great ! Thank you for your clarity! ...hls.

You're very welcome! And don't feel bad about not understanding it all; when I taught Business Law, many students were in a constant state of befuddlement! That's the law for ya! :=))

Sarah