Essay: Analysis of legal problem question (US law)

Whether or not Peter Lake made an offer to sell microphones to Pearly Soames depends on if it falls under the conditions of an offer. In order for an offer to be valid and binding, it must be clearly communicated, including definite terms. This includes the willingness of the offeror to enter into an agreement, the offeror’s intent to form a binding contract, and the explicit communication of the offer and the terms to the offeree. On February 17, Lake stated, “I will sell you ten microphones for $45 a piece.” Lake followed this offer by writing a note of it, stating, “Will sell to Pearly Soames 10 microphones @ $45/ea. Offer expires May 25. [signed] Peter Lake.” Lake clearly stated the offer and terms, and showed willingness and intent to form a contractual obligation. Soames was aware of the price of goods, and expiration of the offer. Thus, a valid offer was made by Peter Lake to sell ten microphones for $45 each to Pearly Soames.
Lake and Soames Acceptance (Microphones)
Whether Soames agreed to Lake’s offer for the sale of the microphones depends on the principals of acceptance. The acceptance of an offer may only be valid if it is express or implied directly to the offeror. It must fall within the prescribed time constraints, and acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. In this instance, Soames did not accept Lake’s offer immediately. The offer was made on February 17, and on May 20th, when Lake contacted Soames for a separate agreement, Soames communicated to Lake directly that he accepted the offer to purchase ten microphones for $45 each. The acceptance of this offer fell before the expiration, and was absolute and unconditional. Therefore, Soames agreement to Lake’s offer to purchase ten microphones for $45 each is valid and applicable.
Lake and Soames Enforceability (Microphones)
Whether Peter Lake can revoke his offer to sell the microphones to Soames is dependant on if a contract was formed prior to revocation. A contract is formed when one party, the offeror, makes an offer that is accepted by the other party the offeree. The offeror is free to revoke the offer at any point before the offeror accepts. Lake made an offer to sell ten microphones for $45 each to Soames on February 17th. On May 20th, Soames accepted his offer, thus forming a contract. After the acceptance, Lake claimed that he had every right to refuse to sell the microphones. Lake cannot refuse to sell the microphones to Soames because the contract was formed before his attempt to revoke the offer.
Lake and Soames Offer (Sound System)
Whether or not Peter Lake can enforce his contract with Soames for the sale of a custom sound system is reliant on if an offer was made in the first place. In order for an offer to be valid and binding, it must be clearly communicated, including definite terms. This includes the willingness of the offeror to enter into an agreement, the offeror’s intent to form a binding contract, and the explicit communication of the offer and the terms to the offeree. On February 17, Lake said to Soames, “I will sell it to you for $25,000. It will take about 90 days to put it together…” Peter Lake stated the price, the terms, and had the full intent to enter into an agreement. Soames was aware of these terms. A valid offer was created by Lake with the intent to sell a custom sound system to Soames.
Lake and Soames Acceptance (Sound System)
Whether Peter Lake and Pearly Soames had an agreement for the sale of a custom sound system depends on if there was an acceptance to the offer made. The acceptance of an offer may only be valid if it is express or implied directly to the offeror. It must fall within the prescribed time constraints, and acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. In this instance, Soames clearly stated, “Fine, I accept.” when Lake made an offer to sell the sound system for $25,000 in approximately 90 days. This was said directly to the offeror, Lake and was absolute and unconditional. Therefore, Soames’ acceptance of Lake’s offer is valid and applicable.
Lake and Soames Enforceability (Sound System)
Whether or not the agreement between Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the sale of a custom sound system for $25,000 is enforceable is dependant upon the validity of the contract. Oral contracts are typically enforceable unless they fall under the statute of frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing. This includes several requirements, including the sale of goods over $500. However an exception to this rule is speciality items. If a manufacturer agrees to create specialty items for a client, once they begin to manufacture the goods, the contract is enforceable without a written agreement. Here, Lake was selling a $25,000 sound system to Soames, which falls under the statute of frauds and would typically require a written agreement. However, since Lake made the sound system personalized for the band’s “detailed specifications,” Soames is required to pay for it because it is not suitable for sale to another customer. Thus, Peter Lake is right about the enforceability of his contract with Pearly Soames for the sale of the sound system, and Soames is required to pay him for it.
Lake and Penn Offer
Whether or not Lake is entitled to the position offered by Beverly Penn depends on if a valid offer was made to him to begin with. In order for an offer to be valid and binding, it must be clearly communicated, including definite terms. This includes the willingness of the offeror to enter into an agreement, the offeror’s intent to form a binding contract, and the explicit communication of the offer and the terms to the offeree. On April 6, Penn wrote to Lake, “…Come on board right away, and I will sell you half of my business for $150,000…” Penn clearly stated the conditions of the sale and the letter was received by Lake. Penn showed an intent to enter into a contractual agreement with Lake. Accordingly, Penn did make a valid and binding offer to Lake to sell a portion of her business to him for $150,000.
Lake and Penn Acceptance
The question of whether Lake’s acceptance of Penn’s offer was properly communicated is reliant upon the nature of acceptance. The acceptance of an offer may only be valid if it is express or implied directly to the offeror. It must fall within the prescribed time constraints, and acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. The mailbox rule states that an offer is considered accepted at the time that the acceptance is communicated, not upon arrival. Lake mailed the followed note to Penn on April 15, “Dear Beverly: I have decided to take you up on your generous proposition…” The note never arrived to Penn. However, according to the mailbox rule, the offer was considered accepted upon the mailing of the note. Therefore, Lake’s acceptance of Penn’s offer to sell half of her business for $150,000 is valid, thus forming a binding contract between the two parties.
 
Lake and Penn Enforceability
Whether or not Beverly Penn is guilty of a breach of contract is reliant upon the question of if the contract is valid and enforceable. A valid contract is formed when one party, the offeror, makes an offer that is accepted by the other party the offeree. The offeror is free to revoke the offer at any point before the offeror accepts. A breach of contract occurs when the agreement is not kept, because one party to the contract does not complete their obligation according to its terms. When Penn made an offer to sell half of her business to Lake for $150,000, Lake accepted, thus forming a valid and enforceable contract. On April 25, Penn contacted Lake to notify him that she filled the position, after the contract had already been formed between Penn and Lake. By hiring a third party after already hiring Lake, Penn violated the contract she had made with Penn. The contract was valid and enforceable for the sale of half of Beverly Penn’s business for $150,000, however there was a breach of contract.
 
Dataserv and Technology IRAC Analysis
Dataserv (Skjonsby) and Technology (Finerty) Offer
Whether or not Skjonsby of Dataserv made a valid and enforceable offer to sell certain computer features for $100,000 to Finerty of Technology is up to the nature of the offer. In order for an offer to be valid and binding, it must be clearly communicated, including definite terms. This includes the willingness of the offeror to enter into an agreement, the offeror’s intent to form a binding contract, and the explicit communication of the offer and the terms to the offeree. On August 29, Skjonsby proposed to sell these “features” to Finerty, that had previously been purchased in Canada. On September 6, Skjonsby sent Finerty a proposed form contract. Dataserv clearly communicated all the terms necessary to enter into an agreement with Technology, and showed willingness and intent to enter into a contractual agreement. Therefore, Skjonsby did make a valid and binding offer to Finerty to sell computer features for $100,000.
Dataserv and Technology Acceptance
Whether Finerty and Skjonsby’s formed a contract to purchase the computer features for $100,000 is dependant upon if Finerty accepted the terms of Skjonsby’s original offer. The acceptance of an offer may only be valid if it is express or implied directly to the offeror. It must fall within the prescribed time constraints, and acceptance must be absolute and unconditional. Making a counter offer automatically rejects the prior offer, and requires an acceptance under the terms of the counter offer or there is no contract. On October 1, Finerty responded to Skjonsby’s proposed form contract with a counter offer, stating that “three changed need to be made” and he will sign the contract. This signified a rejection to the original offer. Two of the changes were resolved, and on October 17, Dataserv offered a remedy to the final change. Technology did not respond. On November 8, Dataserv offered to remove the clause that was causing the delay, and Technology responded by revoking their intent to purchase the “features.” Finerty never accepted the terms to the proposed contract, therefore there was never an acceptance.
Dataserv and Technology Enforceability
Whether or not Technology is liable for the difference between the sale price of the features and the contract price depends on if a contract was ever formed for which they would be responsible for payment. A valid contract is formed when one party, the offeror, makes an offer that is accepted by the other party the offeree. The offeror is free to revoke the offer at any point before the offeror accepts. Making a counter offer automatically rejects the prior offer, and requires an acceptance under the terms of the counter offer or there is no contract. Dataserv offered certain IBM computer “features” for the price of $100,000 to Technology on August 29. On September 6, Dataserv sent a proposed contract for this sale, and after over a month of back and forth, the two parties did not come to an agreement. On November 8, Technology communicated to Dataserv that “the deal was not going to get done…” At this point, any possibility of an agreement was dismissed. A contract was never formed between the two parties. Technology cannot be held liable for the difference between the sale price of the features and the contract price.