When in Doubt, Fight It Out

When in doubt, fight it out

I know a Final paper should start out by saying what the final is about and give the thesis, but I want to start with my thoughts, something different I thought you might like after reading about two thousand of these. When given a case like Smith vs. Smith, ones head can’t help but to swell. There’s this thirty pager on information we’ve “learned” through the semester, and I do say “learned”, not in a bad way but in a truthful matter, you know, a thirty pager would be easy for the people in the class who truthfully did read every chapter every day and purely understood it. For me, I’ve always had this love for law, for some reason would keep Judge Joe hatchet or Judge Judy on the T.V, just because some people are just so crazy, and I’m sure you could agree; but law is very intimidating to me and I'm very much of a pushover when it comes down to it, so actually defending a case like this is a very difficult challenge, but in another way, it’s something I’m very proud of, and I know this could just be one of many cases in real life that you deal with every day professor Dunn, but to me, when I finish this paper, it will be the proudest thing, that I’ve not only done all semester, but all year.

William Smith vs. James Smith

A contract, many and most things that deal with contracts will be touched upon in this case, from written to oral, to breaching and the damage. The following case presented in a civil court and is portraying both the petitioner and defendants sides. James Smith Promised his son William Smith when he graduated that if he moved to the Island of Nantucket, Massachusetts to be the V.P of corporate finance, he will pay him $150,000 annually and after two years of working James will transfer to him forty percent (40%) of the common stock in the company. Considering that William can not collect 40% of the stock unless he’s already worked as VP for two years makes that part of the contract unilateral, and the section of the contract that states that James will pay William $150,000 annually, is a Bilateral contract; a promise for a promise, he promised to pay him the money if William promised to work as VP of corporate finance. William excepted and later James denied his statement and is stated that he was “only joking,” the following will be the case that would be represented to the Jury and the verdict.

In the matters of William Smith vs. James Smith, the case will be research and concluded. To follow the laws of a contract, there are four requirements that need to be met before a contract could ever be valid; these requirements are as listed: Agreement, Consideration, Contractual capacity and Legality. For an agreement, it must have two parts, and offer and an acceptance. James Smith told his son William the following:

• To move to the island and be VP of corporate finance

• Will get paid one hundred and fifty dollars annually ($150,000)

• And, after two (2) years of service, James Smith will transfer 40 percent of the common stock in the company to William

That, straight forward, is an offer. From that statement, William immediately emailed his father an acceptance for these terms, which is the second part that needs to be obtained for an agreement.

The second requirement for a contract is consideration, which is also broken down into two parts. For part 1, “something of legally sufficient value must be given in exchange for the promise; and 2 usually; there must be a bargained-for exchange (243.)” The legally sufficient value and the bargained-for exchange are as followed:

• William Smith receives $150,000 annually, and then 40 percent of the stock after working two years if he works as V.P for the family owned Inn.

• James will get William as V.P of corporate finance. Only because he turned down all of the offers he received to take over the family business, which is the bargained for exchange, James gets William, if he turns down the offers.

The third part of the contract is capacity. The law says that both parties that are taking part in the contract must have contractual capacity, which means that either parties or even one person in the parties cannot be mentally incompetent, if so, a legal binding contract cannot take place. Which in the case of Smith vs. Smith, both parties were mentally competent and the contract, in this case, is valid. Lastly, the fourth requirement that makes a contract, Legality. Legality is simply stated that is must be legal and in if in any means there is something stated in the contract that is prohibited by the state of federal statutory law, it will then be