In this case Grace contracted Jane an accomplished piano tutor to take her through ten piano lessons for which she was to pay $500 for each. The exams to be taken after the lessons; were scheduled for the last week of the month of October. After taking five lessons, Grace informed Jane the Piano tutor that she was not able to continue with the remaining five lessons; as she would not be able to pay for them due to the costs she had to cover towards her mother’s cancer illness that had significantly increased (McDonald & Street, 2009).
Jane on considering that Grace was one of her promising students; felt sorry for her and offered an agreement to collect a nominal sum of $150 per lesson for the remaining five. Grace was grateful for the offer and accepted it continuing the piano lessons. After the completion of the lessons and sitting the exam; Jane demanded that Grace should pay the $1750 balance for the last five lessons (Poole, 2006).
To start with the validity of the contract should be analyzed; and in this case, the two contracting parties had agreed mutually to reduce the amount to a nominal amount of $150. This is because Grace agreed to continue the classes based on the offer and agreement with Jane that she would receive the lessons at $150 for each (Poole, 2010).
The contract involves the principle of an enforceable contract; where one of the contracting parties advances an offer and the second accepts it. In this case, Jane offers to administer the lessons at $150 and Grace accepts to receive the same amount offered. This means that the contract is enforceable in favor of Grace but not Jane (Fafinski & Finch, 2009).
The mutual consideration of exchanging something of value is met in this contract; as Grace receives the lessons that are of value as Jane is paid money which is also of exchangeable value. According to the principles of contracting; despite the fact that the lessons are worth $500 Jane cannot claim this value as she offered them for the agreed price of $150; by doing so she would be revoking the contract (McDonald & Street, 2009).
In this case the consideration of performance and delivery; the contract is enforceable as the contracting parties have completed their part of the contract. Grace performed her duties and obligations by offering the amount agreed upon; while Jane on the other hand offered the lessons and the exam (Poole, 2010).
Giving consideration to the principle of good faith; Jane may have been secretly offering the lessons at the cost of $500 as opposed to the agreed value of $150. In this case, her claim will not be enforceable as she secretly intended to offer the lessons at $500 and not the agreed value; therefore did not act in good faith making her claim unenforceable (Poole, 2006).
According to the legal guidelines that determine the enforceability of an agreement; a contract should not go against legal policy. This is to means that for a contract to be enforceable, it should not be illegal. In this case, the contract is not legal and therefore Grace is capable of enforcing her end of the contract.
The case linking Grace and Jane is an oral contract; meaning that the evidence of the agreement is intangible if any, and this may render the agreement unenforceable, or compel one of the individuals to resolve to less than contracted to; in the original, contract. However the case will also greatly depend on whether the two contracting parties admit having agreed upon providing and receiving the lessons at $150 (McDonald & Street, 2009).
However, based on the “statute of fraud”; certain types of contracts are not enforceable unless if put in written form and signed against to confirm consent of the parties. In this case, there was no written agreement concerning the contract; therefore Grace may be capable of claiming the balance. However, the current case does not fall within the contracts enumerated under the statute of frauds that include the sale of land; responding to the duty of another; lasting more than a year, and those involving the sale of commodities under the uniform commercial code. The fact that this contract does not fall within these categories means that the claim for the balance by Jane may not be enforceable (Fafinski & Finch, 2009).
Based on the review of the case between Jane and Grace; it is evident that there was mutual consent in making the contract; the offer advanced by Jane was accepted by Grace, and the mutual exchange of lessons and money took place. This provides information to prove that the contract between the two is enforceable. In this case, both parties kept to their performance and delivery obligations; and that Jane did not act in good faith with respect to the agreement as it appears that she had silently settled at $500 dollars per lesson; despite having agreed-upon $150. The advice that I can advance Grace is that; in arguing her case out she should base her argument on the contractual agreement; Jane’s failure to act in good faith as per the contract, and Jane’s admitting to the agreement of the contract that would make the contract enforceable and valid. Based on these factors Jane is not able to claim the $1750 balance before the law.
Reference List
Fafinski, S. & Finch, E. (2009).Contract Law. Longman Press
McDonald, J. & Street, A. (2009). Equity & Trusts Concentrate. OUP Oxford.
Poole, J. (2006) Casebook on Contract Law. OUP Oxford Press.
Poole, J. (2010). Contract Law Concentrate. OUP Oxford.