DELIA’S DANCE SCHOOL Delia, who operates and is the only instructor at a successful dance school, needed a new dance instructor. While at an out-of-town social function, she mentioned the job opportunity to her friend, Fran, saying, "I know you don?t have any formal dance training, but you are such a natural athlete that this position could be a good fit for you." Fran immediately quit her job and moved to the town of Delia's school to pursue her prospects as a dance instructor at the school. Unaware that Fran was moving, Delia contacted Irv, an experienced dance instructor, to inquire about his availability for the position at her school. Delia offered Irv a six-month contract. Irv said, "That is a tempting offer. Can you give me a month to think about it?" Reluctantly, Delia signed a statement that provided that Irv had one month to make his decision based on the "good consideration" of $20 paid by Irv to Delia. In fact, Irv paid Delia nothing. In the meantime, the landowner of the property at which the dance school operated terminated Delia?s lease. Worried about having to find a new site on which to operate the dance school, Delia decided not to hire a second dance instructor just yet. At the end of the month, when Irv called Delia to advise her of his decision to accept the job offer, Delia advised him that she had decided not to hire another dance instructor. 1. Under what legal theory, if any, can Fran sue Delia, and to what relief, if any, might Fran be entitled? Discuss fully. 2. Is Irv likely to prevail in a lawsuit against Delia to enforce their contract? Discuss fully. Fran v. Delia Fran will only be able to pursue a theory of breach of contract if she can prove that there was a valid contract as evidenced by mutual assent consisting of an offer, acceptance and consideration between Fran and Delia. Does UCC or Common Law Apply? The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) controls contracts for the sale of goods which are moveable items that are identifiable to the contract. Otherwise, common law controls. Here, the proposed contract was for employment as a dance instructor, which is a service and is therefore not included in the UCC. Thus, the common law will control. Was the Communication between Fran and Delia an Offer? An offer is a manifestation of present contractual intent comprised of a promise to carry out the terms of the proposed transaction, which terms are definite, communicated to the offeree, thereby creating a power of acceptance in the offeree and which bargains for an act, a forbearance to act or a return promise. Under common law, for an offer to be definite enough it had to include quantity, time of performance, identity of the parties, price and subject matter. The Restatement will find the terms sufficient to support an offer if it is clear the parties intended to contract and there is a reasonable means to assess breach and damages. Here, Fran will argue that Delia made a job offer to her because she mentioned the job opportunity at her dance school and indicated that, even though Fran had no formal training, she was such a natural athlete that the position would be a good fit for her. Fran will argue that there was quantity - one job; parties - Delia and Fran, subject dance instructor. Fran will counter that there was no price since salary was not discussed, and time of performance was not satisfied because they did not discuss when Fran would be needed or for how long. She will also argue that even under the Restatement there are insufficient terms to determine whether a breach occurred because they had no time when she was to begin and there is no appropriate measure of damages because no salary was discussed. Given the fact that Fran had no experience as a dance instructor, there is no reasonable basis to determine what a fair salary or payment would be. Under common law, it does not appear that there were sufficient terms for an offer. Acceptance An acceptance is an unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer. Here, Fran will argue that she accepted the offer by quitting her job and moving to town to commence action. However, under common law, this is not sufficient for acceptance. Unilateral Contract A unilateral contract is one where the offeror does not seek a return promise but seeks performance by an action. The Offeror is prevented from revoking the offer for a reasonable period of time after the offeree has begun performance. Here, Fran will attempt to argue that this was a unilateral contract that she accepted by commencing performance. However, this argument will fail because the offer was not sufficiently definite. If there was a valid offer, did it lapse? Offers are deemed to lapse and cannot be accepted after a reasonable time. Oral offers are usually deemed lapsed at the end of the conversation. Here, even if the Court deemed the terms of the offer sufficiently definite, the offer would have lapsed at the end of their conversation and since Fran did not accept within a reasonable time, the offer could no longer be accepted. Is Fran Entitled to Relief Under a Theory of Promissory Estoppel? A promise which is not otherwise enforceable may be enforced in equity to avoid injustice if the Promisor made a promise upon which the offeree reasonably relied and such reliance caused her damages. The measure of damages is the reasonable value of her reliance on the promise. Here, Fran will argue that Delia should be estopped from contending that there was no valid offer or acceptance because Frank reasonably relied on Delia’s statements that she had 1) a job opportunity; 2) that Fran would be a good fit for. Based on that promise, Fran reasonably quit her job and moved to the town where Delia had her dance study to pursue being a dance instructor. Delia will argue that a reasonable person would not rely upon such a vague statement without further clarification and would require, at a bare minimum, some indication of how long she would be needed and how much she would be paid, especially given the fact that Fran has no professional experience or training as a dance instructor. It was unreasonable for Fran to simply quit her job and move without further discussions with Delia. It is unlikely that the court will find that Fran reasonably relied upon a promise by Fran and she would not be entitled to damages under this theory. Irv v. Delia Contract, defined supra. UCC or Common Law, defined supra. Here, again, the offer involves a service contract and the common law will apply. Offer, defined supra. Here, Delia manifested her intent to be bound to her offer to hire Irv, an experienced dance instructor, for six months. Although a specific salary was not discussed, the court could imply a salary similar to what Irv was currently earning in his position as a dance instructor and under the Restatement, it is likely that the court would find that the terms of this offer were sufficiently definite to constitute an offer, i.e., quantity - one dance teacher; time of performance - 6 months; parties: Delia and Irv, price - Irv’s normal salary as a dance instructor; and subject matter: dance instruction. Acceptance, defined supra. Here, Irv did not accept the offer because he did not agree to the terms but requested one month to think it over. Rejection: A rejection is an indication that the party does not intend to enter into the contract. Here, Irv did not reject the offer, but simply asked for a month to consider it. Therefore, there was no rejection. Option Contract An option contract is a separate agreement to hold an original offer open for a certain period of time in exchange for consideration. Here, Delia signed a statement indicating that she would hold the offer open for one month in exchange for Irv paying her $20. Delia will argue that this option contract was not supported by consideration because Irv did not in fact pay the $20 to her. However, courts have held that this is not a valid defense so long as there is a recital that valid consideration has been paid within the statement indicating that the offer will remain open. Therefore, this is a valid option contract. Statute of Frauds Under common law, certain contracts must be in writing signed by the person to be charged to be enforced. These include contracts that cannot be completed in one year of the date of contract, those involving marriage, surety for the debts of others, executor’s guarantees of payments and contracts involving land. Since both the contract for employment and the option contract do not fall into any of these areas, the Statute of Frauds is not an issue. With respect to the Option Contract, since Delia did sign the contract, the statute would be satisfied. Was Irv’s Telephone Call a Valid Acceptance? Acceptance, defined above. Irv called Delia within the option period because he called at the end of the month. At that time, he advised her that he had decided to accept the job offer. Since it appears that this was unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer, this was a valid acceptance. Further, under an option contract the acceptance is valid as long as it is received by the Offeror prior to the termination date of the option contract. Because Irv called and advised Delia at the end of the month, prior to the option running, it was valid. Was Delia’s Revocation Valid? A party can revoke an offer prior to acceptance unless there is a valid option contract and then the party cannot revoke until after the option period has lapsed. Delia did not effectively revoke her offer for two reasons: 1) Irv had already accepted the offer because he had told her he accepted her job offer; and 2) the option period had not run and she was not entitled to revoke the offer. Can Delia claim Impossibility? A party to a contract will be freed from all obligations under the contract if, through no fault of their own, it has become impossible to perform. Here, Delia will claim that the fact that her landlord had terminated her lease made it impossible for her to hire another dance instructor because she had no place for him to teach. She will argue that this was through no fault of her own because she did nothing to cause the termination and had no knowledge that the landlord intended to do so. However, this argument will fail because she was already looking for a new site for the school and clearly intended to continue operating the school. Therefore, it is not impossible for her to perform. Can Delia Claim Impracticability? Some contracts will be discharged if it becomes sufficiently impracticable for them to perform. However, this involves substantial hardship usually involving at least ten times the cost of a contract as anticipated. Here, the simple fact that Delia is having to move her studio is insufficient to support that it is too impractical to hire Irv since she plans to continue to operate a dance school given the fact that she was looking for a new studio. Can Delia Claim Duress? A contract entered into due to duress will not be enforced if the duress is sufficient that it would overcome the will of a reasonably firm person. Here, Delia will argue that she did not want to enter into the option contract and did so reluctantly. However, there is no indication that Irv put any pressure on her; he simply asked her for a month to think the offer over. There is no evidence to suggest conduct that would overcome the will of a reasonably firm person. This defense is unlikely to succeed. Breach: A breach is an unexcused failure to perform a duty which gives rise to damages. A minor breach is one wherein the non-breaching party is given a substantial benefit of his bargain and does not excuse his continued performance but requires that the breaching party pay damages for the breach. A major breach involves the essence of the bargain and the non-breaching party is entitled to stop performance and sue immediately for damages. If Delia refuses to perform by allowing Irv to begin work as a dance instructor, this would be a major breach and Irv would be entitled to stop performance and sue for damages. Anticipatory Repudiation: An anticipatory repudiation is a clear expression that a party does not intend to perform under the terms of the contract. The non-breaching party is relieved from all further duties under the contract and may immediately bring a suit for damages. Here, Delia clearly advised Irv that she did not intend to perform under the contract because she told him she had decided not to hire another dance instructor. So unless Delia immediately repudiates that statement, she has committed an anticipatory repudiation. Damages; Irv is entitled to his compensatory damages which would consist of six months salary at his normal rate. Mitigation: A non-breaching party is not entitled to recover for damages that he could reasonably avoid. If Irv is able to find another job as a dance instructor, Delia would be entitled to an offset for any earnings he had during those six months. 3) Answer B to Question 3 Does UCC or common law rule in this transaction? Since UCC rules in contracts for goods, and common law in all other contracts, and this contract deals with employment services, not goods, common law will rule this transaction. Did Delia make a valid offer to Fran? Offer is an assertion of present intent to be bound by clear and specific terms. In this case, Fran and Delia were in a social situation, so a reasonable person would probably have not concluded that this was a formal offer. Under the objective theory of contracts, the parties are bound to the interpretation given by a reasonable person. Also Delia said that the position “could be a good fit” for Fran; that does not seem like a serious or definite offer. Therefore, there are no reasons to believe that an offer was made because Delia was only making a general comment that should have not been construed as an offer. Can Fran recover under a promissory estoppel doctrine? If the defendant makes a promise to another, wherein the promise is foreseeable that induces reliance in the other person, and the other person in fact relies on the promise to his detriment, the defendant will be liable for reliance damages. Here, we see clearly that Fran relied on Delia’s comments. However, it seems that Delia did not expect Fran to rely on her statement. This was a social situation; maybe Fran could work towards becoming an instructor since she did not have any formal training, but it does not seem like an employment offer as discussed herein above. Therefore, Fran will not likely be able to recover from Delia under promissory estoppel since a reasonable person would have not believed that he was inducing reliance on Fran. What relief can Fran expect? As previously discussed, we do not believe that Fran will be entitled to relief for anticipatory repudiation. However, if the court decided that the reliance was foreseeable, she could be entitled to recover for her expenses and the loss of her job. The court would try to put Fran in the same situation as she was before the promise. Did Delia make Irv an offer? Offer, see supra. Clearly Delia made an offer, since she put it in writing that she would give Irv one month to make his decision. Is the offer revocable? When an offeror receives consideration to keep an offer open, an option contract is created wherein the offer is irrevocable for the amount of time stipulated. Here we have a signed writing that creates an option contract because Irv offered the consideration of $20 to keep the offer open for a month. Even though the consideration was not paid, this does not make the options contract invalid. Delia will be able to recover the $20, but she will not be able to revoke her offer. Delia tried to revoke her offer, but she did not have a right to do so because it was the end of the time stipulated in the options contract. Therefore, the offer is irrevocable because there was a valid Options contract. Is there a valid acceptance? Acceptance is the unconditional assent to the terms in the offer. Here Irv called to advise Delia of his “decision to accept.” Since he Irv still had the power of acceptance because of his Options contract, the acceptance is valid. Is there a valid contract? To form a contract, it is required to have an offer, acceptance and consideration. Consideration is what is bargained for by the parties. Here we have consideration because it is an employment contract, services for pay. Since we have valid offer and acceptance, as discussed herein above, plus mutual consideration, we have a valid contract. Did Delia perform an anticipatory repudiation? If a party asserts that she will not fulfill her duties in the future before performance is due, it is said that he has committed anticipatory repudiation and will be liable for breach of contract. Here we have a valid contract, but Delia told Irv that she had decided “not to hire another dance instructor.” Since Delia reneged on the contract, we have anticipatory repudiation and she will be liable for breach of contract. Can Delia use the defense of impracticability? If the occurrence of an event, whose non-occurrence was a basic assumption during contract formation, makes delivery unduly hard, and the party does not bear the risk for this kind of event, then the contract will be discharged for impracticability. The event here is that Delia’s lease was terminated, but this is an event that Delia should have forecasted as a business owner; therefore she bears the risk because she knew about her lease situation. Since Delia bore the risk of the lease being terminated, she won’t be able to use the defense of impracticability. Can Delia use the defense of impossibility? If events after the formation of the contract make delivery impossible, the contract will be discharged. Here, performance is not impossible because Delia can find another place for her school, so impossibility will not work as a defense either. Can Delia use the defense of frustration of purpose? If an event, whose non-occurrence was a basic assumption, occurs after formation and destroys the purpose for which a party entered into the contract, then the contract will be discharged for frustration of purpose. Again, Delia is the one responsible for managing her lease and bears the risk. Also, she still has the purpose to continue with the school in another location. Therefore frustration of purpose will not work as a defense since the school will be operating in another location and Irv can work as an instructor there. Can Delia use the Statute of Frauds to avoid contract enforcement? The Statute of Frauds requires that some contracts must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. However, an employment contract like this will be enforceable even though the contract was oral. It could even be considered that the offer was in writing with the Operations contract, but facts do not clearly indicate if just the option contract was in writing or both offer and options contract were in writing. What damages will Irv recover? Expectation damages will be awarded to give the non-breaching party the benefit of the bargain. Specific performance may be imposed by the court when damages are not adequate and it is easy to enforce the delivery of performance. In our case, it is not likely that the court will impose specific performance because it is very hard to implement in employment contracts. Irv would likely get compensation damages for the salary he could have made, plus other incidental and consequential expenses that he may have had. He has the duty to mitigate and find similar employment, and then the damages will be discounted by the amount mitigated. Therefore, Irv will be entitled to recover for salary expected to be received and other related damages as consequence of the breach, but he must mitigate by searching for similar employment.
 

DELIA’S DANCE SCHOOL

The only trainer and operator at a successful dance school named Delia required a fresh dance teacher. Once at an event out of town, she informed the job opportunity for her ally, Fran. She told her that she knew that Fran had no official dance training, although she was aware that she was a natural athlete and saw the position fit her. Following this mention, Fran quit her current job with immediate effect. She then moved to Dalia’s school town to chase her prospects as a dance teacher at the facility. 

 

Delia got in touch with Irv, a professional dance coach asking about his availability for the same job position at the institution. She did this not aware that Fran was relocating to town. Thus, Irv was given a six-month contract by Delia. Irv asked Dalia to provide her with a month to think about it as a tempting offer. Delia halfhearted signed a statement that allowed Irv a month to make his decision. This was done based on a $20 consideration compensated to Delia by Irv.  But for a fact, Delia was not paid anything by Irv.

 

In between, Delia’s lease was put to an end by the property’s landowner, where the dance school functioned. Thus, she decided not to employ another dance coach for the time being as she was concerned that she was to locate a new place to operate the dance school.  Irv then reached out to Irv to enquire about her decision on the pending job offer at the end of the month. Unfortunately, Delia informed him that she had concluded that she would not employ a second dance teacher.

 

1.Under what officially permitted hypothesis, if any, can Fran take legal action on Delia, and what Relief may Fran be allowed to?  Describe completely.

2. Is Irv probable to triumph in a court case against Delia to impose their agreement? Describe completely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delia v. Fran

The only way that Fran will be able to go after a breach of contract ideology is to provide evidence by permission that is reciprocated comprising of propounding, acceptance and reflection between Delia and Fran.

Does Common Law or UCC Apply?

Contracts for the trade of products are controlled by The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). These goods must be mobile items recognizable regarding the agreement, contrary to that, and the Common law takes all the control.

Consequently, the suggested contract was for a dance instructor employment, falling under service hence not incorporated in UCC. The common law, therefore, takes charge.

Was Delia and Fran’s Communication an Offer?

An offer is an epitome of currently enjoyed intent, which entitles a promise to adhere to conditions of the initiated transaction. The terms are clearly passed on to the offeree, establishing a solid force of acceptance by the offeree. Moreover, it negotiates for a deed and patient to act or fulfil a promise. On the other hand, for an offeree to be clear, it is necessary to incorporate the time of performance, quantity, the identity of the parties, and subject matter.  Therefore, the summary will see that the conditions adequate to hold up the offer if it is transparent that the involved parties wanted to contract and there is a sensible way to determine damages and breach.

In this, Fran attests that Delia came up with an employment offer to her since she talked about the opportunity in her school of dance and stated that Fran was an inborn athlete even though she lacked formal instructions post would be suitable for her.

Thus, Fran will attest that there was measure- singular work; groups- Fran and Delia, subject matter- dance coach.

Consequently, Fran claims that there is no cost because the wage was never negotiated as well as enough satisfaction of them since they had not put clear for which duration they would require her. Additionally, she would also state that there would be inadequate policies to see whether a breach occurred since there was no specified time when Fran would begin. Thus, there is no suitable measure of damages since there was no compensation conversed. Finally, in the sense that Fran lacked skills as a dance teacher, there is no rational foundation to settle on a reasonable payment or salary.

There were no acceptable terms under the common law for an offer.

Acceptance
It is an unambiguous acquiesce to the stipulations of the preposition. In this case, Fran will dispute that she agreed to the terms of the offer by relinquishing her job and coming to the school’s town to start a new career. Nonetheless, this is not adequate for acceptance under the common law.

Unilateral Contract

A case where the offeror fails to ask for a return promise but rather asks for performance by action results in a unilateral contract. The offeror is prohibited from rescinding the offer for a logical duration of time once the offeree has commenced implementation.

In this case, Fran will try to dispute that she agreed to begin the performance, thus making it a unilateral contract. Nevertheless, this dispute will be unsuccessful as the offer was not adequately specific.

Was there a valid offer, or did it lapse?

Offers are considered to have lapsed after a reasonable period of time and cannot be accepted. For example, offers done orally are typically considered to have expired once the conservation is ended.

In this case, even if the Court determined the offer stipulations adequately specific, the offer would have slipped at the point the talk ended. Besides, as Fran did not agree to the recommendation for a logical period, it would no longer be recognized.

Is Fran permitted to Relief under a Theory of Promissory Estoppel?

Suppose the promisor made a promise after which the offerer sensibly depended, and the dependence led to their havocs. In that case, a guarantee, which is not or else imposable, may be imposed in evenhanded to evade unfairness.

In this case, Fran will assert that Delia ought to be estopped from opposing that there existed an approval or legal offer since Fran sensibly depended on statements by Dalia that she had a chance for employment and that she was suitable for the position.

Fran logically left her job and came to Delia’s town to become a dance coach based on the promise. Delia will dispute that a sensible human being would not depend on an unclear sentiment devoid of additional explanation and would need, at least,  some sign of the length she was required and the amount of money she would be compensated. Moreover,  for the fact that Fran lacked any skilful training or experience as a dance teacher. Thus, it was irrational for Fran to leave her job and head for the town devoid of extra talks with Delia. Therefore, it is not likely that the Court will judge that Fran rationally depended on Dalia’s promise. Thus, she would not be allowed to be compensated for her damages under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Delia v. Irv

Contract defined supra.
Common-Law or UCC, defined supra.

Again, in this case, the offer entails a service contract, and therefore, the common law will be subjected—offer defined supra.

In this case, Delia did reveal her intentions to be tied up to her proposal to employ Irv, who was a professional dance coach for six months. Although there was a particular salary agreed upon, the Court could mean equal compensation to the amount that Irv earned in his present job as a dance teacher and under the Restatement. Therefore, it is not likely that the Court would conclude that the stipulations of the proposal were adequately specific to form an offer (that is, the quantity comprising of a sole dance instructor, six months to be the duration of the performance, Irv and Delia as the parties involved, Irv’s typical salary as a dance teacher to be the price and the dance instruction to be the theme.

Acceptance defined supra.

In this case, Irv failed to recognize the proposal as he could not accept the conditions and asked for an extra month to contemplate it.

Rejection:

Rejection refers to proof that the party does not mean to get involved in the contract. Here, Irv did not deny the offer but requested one month to think about it. Hence, rejection was not available.

Option contract

This is an express agreement to keep an offer open for a definite period in consideration exchange.

In this case, Delia agreed to a statement showing that she would keep an offer in place for a month in return for Irv paying her twenty dollars. She will claim that this option's contract was not considered supported since Irv did not pay the amount. Although courts have held this defense invalid since a recital is available, reasonable consideration has been some within the statement showing that the offer will stay open. Hence, this is a formal contract of option.

According to common law, agreements should be in written form and signed by the individual charged. These include those that cannot be finished in a year like marriage, debt surety, guarantees of executors of payments and land contracts. Because both option and employment contract is not under these areas, the Fraud Statute is not a challenge. However, with option contract respect, because Delia signed the agreement, the statute will not be satisfied.

If Irv's call was a reasonable Acceptance

I have called Delia within the span of option since he called during the end month.  At that period, he gave a piece of advice that he had agreed to accept the offer. Because it seems that this was permission which was unmistakable to the offer terms, this was a good acceptance. Moreover, under a contract of option, the agreement is valid since it is acquired by offering it before the option's end date. Therefore, since Irv made a call and talked to Delia at the end month before running the opportunity, it was reasonable.

If revocation of Delia was valid

A party can refuse an offer before acceptance if there is no reasonable contract of option and cannot revoke until the vote is over.

Delia failed to revoke the offer effectively for the reasons below:

1)  Irv had agreed to the offer since he had said to her he was okay with the offer.

2) The span of the option had not ended, and she was not supposed to revoke the given offer.

If Delia can claim impossibility

A contracting party is free from all obligations under the agreement if it has not been possible to succeed via no will of themselves.

In this situation, Delia will assert that her landlord had brought her lease to an end and made it hard for her to employ another instructor since she did not have a place for him to educate. She will claim that this was not her fault since she did not do anything to lead to the termination and did not know about the landlord willing to do so.  Nevertheless, this argument will not succeed since she had started searching for a new location for the school.

Hence, Delia can't perform.

If Delia can claim impracticability

Some of the agreements will be dismissed if it gets impracticably sufficient for them to present. Nevertheless, this includes substantial hardship that usually involves a minimum of ten times the contract price. The reality that Delia has to relocate her studio is not enough to sustain that it is not practical to employ Irv because she wants to go on operating a dance education centre since she was seeking another studio.

If Delica can claim Duress

If the compulsion is sufficient that a contract entered into due to coercion, then it will not be imposed as it would surmount the will of a sensibly firm individual. In this case, Delia will dispute that she was not willing to enter into the choice contract and therefore entered unwillingly. Nonetheless, there lacks no proof that Irv forced Delia to enter into the contract as he gave her a month to think it over.

Therefore, this argument is not likely to be successful.

Breach:

A breach is a form of boycotting a specific task without justification from the legal personnel or institution, leading to destructions. A minor violation is that one of the contracts is less alarming than the material beach. It authorizes the ill-treated group the right to prosecute for ruins; however, the party is not exempted from additional production. A significant breach introduces a treaty where the non-breaching party is authorized to quit the show and immediately prosecute the defacement incurred. For example, suppose Delia shuns production by permitting Irv to commence performance as a dance master. In that case, it will therefore be a significant breach, and Irv will be forced to stop production and charged for destruction.

If Delia shuns production by permitting Irv to commence performance as dance master, it will be a paramount breach, and Irv will be forced to stop production and charge for destruction.

 

Anticipatory Repudiation:

An anticipatory repudiation is an explicit declaration that a firm is unwilling to produce as per the denomination of the contract. The non-breaching party is reduced from all responsibilities under the contract and leads to persecution due to the impairment incurred immediately. Here, Delia clearly counseled Irv that the aim was not to produce as per the contract, for she had did not make up her mind to engage another dancing master.

Damages;

Irv is subjected to penalties such that he will not be able to receive his salary at typical rates for six months to pay back the damages.

    Mitigation:

A non-breaching party is not inclusive of damage payback for the destruction he could merely evade.

If Irv gets a chance to engage in another position as a dance master, Delia will face a counterbalance of any gross he had within those six months.

 

3) Answer B to Question 3

Is common law or Ucc rule in this transaction?

Because UCC in goods contracts and statute law in the rest of other agreements and this agreement involves work services, not products, the common law will rule in this transaction.

If Delia made a valid suggestion to Fran

Offer refers to a present assertion will to be bound by specific and unambiguous terms.

In this situation, Delia and Fran were in social status. Therefore, a reasonable individual would not have probably concluded that this offer was formal. According to the object contracts theory, the participants are tied up to the interpretation provided by the realistic individual. Besides, Delia suggested that the position could be an excellent fit, but according to Grab, that does not look like a severe or definite offer. Hence, there are no aims to think that an offer was made since Delia was making a general comment that was not supposed to be an offer.

Is it possible for Fran to recover under a promissory estoppel doctrine

Suppose the accused gives a promise to the other, where the guarantee is foreseen. In that case, that brings up reliance on the other party, and the other individual actually depends on the promise of his loss. The accused will be responsible for the harms of reliance.

In this case, Fran depended on the comments Delia. Nonetheless,  maybe Delia did not think Fran would depend on what she stated. This situation was social. Fran could have worked towards getting to be an instructor because she had no formal training, but according to as discussed above, it does not look like an offer for employment.

Hence, Fran will not likely recover under the promissory estoppel because a reasonable individual would not have believed that he would be dependent on Fran.

Relief that Fran should expect

As discussed before, it is not believable that Fran will be relief entitled to expecting abuse. Nevertheless, if the court decided that dependence was predictable, she could be entitled to get well to lose her job and her expenses. The court would attempt to put Fran in a similar case as she was before the promise.

If Delia made Irv an offer

Delia made an offer because she kept it in written form to avail Irv a month to decide.

If the offer is revocable

In situations whereby the one giving the offer gets consideration to ensure an offer available, an optional agreement is made, and the offer is not revocable for the stipulated time.

In this case, a signed writing contract brings an option contract since Irv gave $20 consideration to maintain the offer for one month. Although the consideration did not get paid, this does not mean the contract options not reasonable. Delia will be able to get the amount back, but the offer cannot be revoked. Delia tried revoking the offer she made but did not have a chance of doing so since it was the end of the period shown in the contract options.

Hence, the offer is not revocable as there was a contract of options that was reasonable.

If there is a valid acceptance

Acceptance refers to the unconditional approval to offer terms. The Irv, in this case, called to tell Delia to accept the decision.

Since Irv had the acceptance power due to his contract options, then the acceptance is valid.

If there is a valid contract

For a contract to be formed, an offer, consideration, and acceptance have to be present.  Consideration is bargained for by the parties involved.  There is a consideration here since there are pay services, and the contract is an employment one. Because there is acceptance and an offer that is valid as discussed above and mutual consideration, there is a valid contract.

If Delia performed an anticipatory repudiation

If a group says that they will not adhere to its duties in the time to come prior to action is due, it is concluded that they have done anticipatory repudiation and will be responsible for breaking the contract. In this bald contract, however, Delia informed. Irv that she had come to a conclusion of to employee another instructor to dance.

Because Delia had the agreement renewed, then there is an anticipatory repudiation, and she will be responsible for breaking the agreement.

If Delia can use impossibility defense

If occasions after contract formation make delivery not possible, then the contract will be brought to an end. The performance is possible here since Delia is able to find a different location for her school; hence the impossibility defense will not operate as a defense.

 

If Delia can use frustration purpose defense

If an event whose failure to occur was a basic assumption happens after formation and deteriorates the aim for which a party participated in the contract. The agreement will get discharged door purpose frustration. Also, Delia is liable for her lease management and holds the risk. Moreover, she has the aim to go on with the school in another place. Hence, purpose frustration will not operate as a defense means because the education centre will be carrying out operations in a different area, and Irv can operate as an instructor there.

If Delia can use Frauds Statute to avoid enforcement of the contract

The Statute of Frauds needs some agreements to be in written form and also bear the signature of the party to be charged. Nonetheless, a contract of employment like this one will be operative even if it was done, really. It could even be considered that the offer was in written form with the contract of operations, yet realities do not show clearly if just the contract of option was in writing or both options and offer contract were in written form.

The damages that Irv will recover

Deteriorations of expectation will be presented to offer the group which is not breaching the bargain benefit. Certain performance may be brought by the court if harms are not enough, and it is easy to input performance delivery. In this case, it is not possible that the court will provide specific performance since it is very difficult to come up with employment contracts. Irv will possibly get damages for compensation of the wage he could have earned and other consequential and incidental expenses that he may have incurred. He has the task to mitigate and look for similar employment, and then the damages will be discounted by the avoided amount.

Hence, Irv will be supposed to recover for the wage expected to be gotten and other damages related to the breach, but he must reduce by looking for similar employment.

 

Delia’s Dance School

1. Delia v. Fran

• The only way that Fran will be able to go after a breach of contract ideology is to provide evidence by permission that is reciprocated comprising of propounding, acceptance and reflection between Delia and Fran.

2. Does Common Law or UCC Apply?

• Contracts for the trade of products are controlled by The Uniform Commercial Code.
• The suggested contract was for a dance instructor employment, falling under service hence not incorporated in UCC.

3. Acceptance

• It is an unambiguous acquiesce to the stipulations of the preposition.

• In this case, Fran will dispute that she agreed to the terms of the offer by relinquishing her job and coming to the school’s town to start a new career.

4. Was there a valid offer, or did it lapse?

• Offers are considered to have lapsed after a reasonable period of time and cannot be accepted.

5. Is Fran permitted to Relief under a Theory of Promissory Estoppel?

• Suppose the promisor made a promise after which the offerer sensibly depended, and the dependence led to their havocs.
• She would not be allowed to be compensated for her damages under the theory of promissory estoppel.

6. If Delia can claim impossibility

• A contracting party is free from all obligations under the agreement if it has not been possible to succeed via no will of themselves.
• In this situation, Delia will assert that her landlord had brought her lease to an end and made it hard for her to employ another instructor since she did not have a place for him to educate.

7. If Delia made a valid suggestion to Fran

• Offer refers to a present assertion will to be bound by specific and unambiguous terms.
• There are no aims to think that an offer was made since Delia was making a general comment that was not supposed to be an offer.

8. If Delia can use frustration purpose defense

• If an event whose failure to occur was a basic assumption happens after formation and deteriorates the aim for which a party participated in the contract.
• Purpose frustration will not operate as a defense means because the education centre will be carrying out operations in a different area, and Irv can operate as an instructor there.

9. The damages that Irv will recover

• Deteriorations of expectation will be presented to offer the group which is not breaching the bargain benefit.
• He has the task to mitigate and look for similar employment, and then the damages will be discounted by the avoided amount.