Potential Legal Issues of Acme Corporation - Essay Example

Before any party can sue for enforcement of the contract, he or she has to show that there exist the six basic requisites present in a legally binding contract. Notably, an enforceable contract has to have an offer and acceptance, competent parties with a legal capacity to enter into a contract, a lawful subject, and consideration. In this case, Daffy will have to show the existence of the above-mentioned elements in order to enforce the contract. According to the available details, Daffy will prevail in showing the existence of offer and acceptance and competent parties but will fail to show the mutuality of obligation and the legality of the subject matter.

In order for a contract to be deemed enforceable, the parties in the contract must have a common intention or a meeting of the minds on the conditions of the contract. The individuals must come to an understanding of the same thing, in a similar sense at the same time. If a party to the contract has been deceitfully misled or deceived into accepting or entering into the contract, then the contract is voidable. In this case, Daffy knew that he had been stealing from the company and did not mention it to the company or the board of directors.

Additionally, Daffy will fail to prove the legality of the subject matter if Acme can prove that Daffy has been stealing from the company in the high court. In this case, the subject matter of the contract will be illegal and Daffy will not succeed in his application. In the second case, the Road Runner’s and Coyote’s case against Acme will prevail under negligence. For negligence to prevail, a party should indicate the breach of a duty of care, causation and damages. As stipulated in Donoghue v.

Stevenson (1932), a manufacturer is anticipated to exercise a reasonable duty of care to other people. In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), Donoghue, the plaintiff had taken a beer manufactured by Stevenson, which had remains of a slug at the bottom of the bottle. The court determined that there existed an implied contract between the manufacturer and the plaintiff and that the manufacturer ought to have the people affected by their actions in contemplation (Looney & Oliphant 56).