Elements of Contract Interpretation - Essay Example

Under the intention to contract, neither of the parties had the intention to contract because Bob only offered a gift to Ted as a form of gratitude for helping him. Therefore, since there was no intention to contract, then it implies that there was no existing contract between Bob and Ted. The element of consideration also indicates that there had been no existing contract between the two parties (Burton, 2009). Under the element of consideration, a gift is different from a contract. A gift is a cost-free and voluntary conveyance of a property from one individual to another (Stone, 2008).

Therefore, it does not serve as fulfillment of a promise. Therefore, Ted cannot sue Bob for the failure of paying him the $100 since there was no existing contract between them.Question Two (a)Betty’s contract is indeed valid since there was an offer to contract, made by Betty, which the owner of the local sporting goods store accepted. The element of consideration also exists in the contracts since; Betty gave out her collection of dolls for the bat, ball and glove. Both parties also intended to contract because; they both expressed willingness to reach an agreement, which they both fulfilled.

However, in the case of capacity to contract, Betty had no capacity to contract since, under the law, she is an infant. Section 2 of the Age Majority Act defines an infant as anyone who has not yet attained the age of 18 years (O'Sullivan & Hilliard, 2006). The section asserts that an infant will only be bound when it enters into a contract for the supply of necessities, educational contracts, and a contract for beneficial services. A contract entered by an infant for the supply of other goods other than necessities is deemed as void (Feinberg, 2005).

Therefore, Betty can indeed get out of the contract since; the law does not view her baseball items as necessities.Question Two (b)In the case where Betty had contracted to exchange her doll collection for shoes and clothes, she will not be able to get out of the contract since; she will now be bound by the contract. The law defines necessities as all goods that infants require, and are suitable to the infant’s conditions at the time of sale and delivery (Feinberg, 2005). Therefore, shoes and clothes are necessities because Betty had worn-out clothes and; therefore; she needed the clothes.

Consequently, in this case, the contract binds the infant (Betty) and thus she will not be able to get out.Question 3 (a)An intended beneficiary is an individual who is a third party to the contract apart from the other two basic parties to the contract. The individual benefits from the contract when one party (the promisee) gets into an agreement with another party (the promisor) to provide services to the promisor while the third party (intended beneficiary) receives the benefits (Feinberg, 2005).

Therefore, the promisee must intend to benefit the third party. Ethel is indeed an intended beneficiary of the contract because she is benefitting from services that Dan is receiving from Jen. Although she is not part of the contract between Dan and Jen, she benefits through Jens intention.Question 3 (b) The contract between Dan and Jen must indeed be in writing in order to ensure certainty of transactions and future security. According to the element of formalities, the requirement of writing prevents fraud by either of the parties (O'Sullivan & Hilliard, 2006).

A party to a contract may perpetrate fraud by insisting that there is no written evidence when the other party has already fulfilled his duty in the contract (Stone, 2008). For instance, if the contract between Jen and Dan is not kept in writing, then in the future Jen can sue Dan for not paying her. Consequently, Dan would have to pay twice since he would not have the documents to prove that there was an accord to pay a third party instead of Jen.Question 4Bill is not entitled to the $30000 because he has committed a breach of contract.

He has failed to perform his part of the contract and thus, he cannot go against the terms of the contract. Under discharge of contracts, the law of contracts asserts that a contract can only be discharged once it has been fully or substantially performed (Stone, 2008). Therefore, since there exists a contractual relationship between the two parties, one party cannot avoid performing his part of the contract. A contract can only be discharged in four ways, which include an express agreement between the parties, discharge by performance, discharge due to impossibility, discharge by operation of law.

Any other way will be a breach of the contract (O'Sullivan & Hilliard, 2006). Therefore, Jill should not return the money to Bill. Instead, he should sue Bill for breach of contract.