Introduction
The cases involving issues associated with the contract law are rather controversial and debatable because of a lot of details and conditions that can influence the decision. Burt, a male taking the leading position in the company located in New York, planned the vacation and asked his 16-year old intern and assistant Amy to choose the trip for him and sign the required agreements. The problem was in the fact that Burt decided to cancel the vacation, and he needed to receive the refund related to the reservation payments. Besides, he planned to receive the full refund for goods purchased for the trip.
However, it is important to state that Burt decided to cancel the trip only five days before the scheduled date, and he faced a challenge to get back his payments and deposits. The paper aims to present the analysis of the case and provide recommendations for Burt to follow to resolve the situations with benefits for him.
What do you advise Burt about the validity of his agency agreement with Amy and why?
Agreements and contracts can be discussed as valid only when the following seven conditions are met: offer, acceptance, consideration, legality, capacity, consent, and writing (Mann & Roberts, 2012, p. 121). In the case of the agreement between Tours and Amy, the important condition of the party’s capacity was not addressed because Amy as a 16-year old girl should be regarded as a minor. In this context, a minor is a person who is under the age of 18, and who has no legal rights to sign valid contracts (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015, p. 235). From this point, the made agreement should be discussed as an avoidable contract that can be canceled only by Amy (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015, p. 317).
Therefore, Burt is right to state that the agreement is not valid, and he can ask Amy to disaffirm the agreement and focus on the restitution. A minor can terminate the agreement without concentrating on the time limits represented in the contract (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015, p. 317). The main support for these decisions is the fact that the discussed agreement is voidable.
What do you advise Burt about Tours’ authority to make reservations/contracts on his behalf and why?
Tours can make a contract on behalf of Burt, but in this case, the man should sign the document ensuring that Tours has such a duty. He also could ask the representative to sign the agreement. Still, Amy cannot be discussed as a legal representative for Burt because she is a minor (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015, p. 427). In the case of Burt, there is no valid agreement, and it is impossible to speak about the conditions related to the tourist. Besides, there are no sanctions regarding the cancellation policy and related to Burt. The man should accentuate the fact that he did not agree with Tours to reserve a room in the Hotel, and he did sign the contract. The signature made by Amy cannot be discussed as authorized or valid because the representative is under the age of 18.
What do you advise Burt about his contract with Hotel and whether he can recover his deposit and why?
The contract with Hotel can be discussed as unenforceable because he was created and accepted without the focus on the aspect of the representative’s capacity. On the one hand, the contract could be valid because Amy as the representative mentioned two names in the signature, including the name of the represented person and the name of the representative (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015). On the other hand, the signature of the representative who is under the age of 18 cannot be discussed as valid to support the contract relations. Burt’s signature was not presented in the document. Referring to the fact that the document was written with such mistakes, it could not be discussed as enforceable (Mann & Roberts, 2012).
Therefore, it is possible to advise Burt to make Amy terminate the contract as a minor. In this case, Burt has no obligations to Hotel or Tours. However, Burt can face difficulties while recovering the deposit because the signed check was provided to Tours without the support based on the written contract (Mann & Roberts, 2012). Burt needs to accentuate that any activities made according to the unenforceable agreement were illegal, and the use of the deposit by Tours and Hotel was also illegal. In this case, Burt can hope to receive the full refund.
What do you advise Burt about whether the Statute of Frauds applies to this agreement between Jordon and Burt and why?
The Statute of Frauds covers agreements that include sales of goods that cost $500 or more, as it is in the case of Burt (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015, p. 392). It is possible to refer to the Statute of Frauds while discussing the situation with Jordon and Burt because according to the law, such agreements need to be provided in the written form. For the agreement associated with such type of a sale to be enforceable, it must be presented as a written document and signed by the parties.
If the agreement is in the oral form, it is unenforceable, and it is possible to ask Jordon to compensate for the purchase because the agreement was illegal about this condition. However, there are exceptions to the Statute of Frauds and the commercial code that can be applied to this case, and chances of Burt to receive the full refund are minimal (Mann & Roberts, 2012, p. 12). The other important aspect is that Burt was notified about the conditions of the sale and about the refund policy followed by Jordan in advance before the luggage was delivered.
What do you advise Burt about whether the agreement between Jordan and Burt is a valid, enforceable sales agreement so that Burt should receive a full cash refund for the luggage – and why?
Even though the Statute of Frauds requires the contract between Jordan and Burt to be in a written form, the Uniform Commercial Code provides the exception to this situation (Beatty & Samuelson, 2015, p. 404). If the discussed goods were delivered and paid for, but the agreement was not presented in the written form, the contract could be discussed as valid and enforceable. Also, Burt was informed about the refund policy followed by Jordon, and he knew that the full cash refund was possible only during the 30 days after purchasing the goods. Therefore, Burt should be advised to accept Jordon’s proposition related to store credit, as the discussed agreement is enforceable.
Conclusion
Referring to the conducted analysis of the case, it is possible to state that Burt can receive the required refund in the situation with the paid reservations. Burt should use the opportunity to persuade the court that the agreement was invalid or voidable because it was signed by a minor who could serve as the representative in this case. However, Burt cannot receive the full refund for purchasing the luggage, and the best option for the man is to accept Jordan’s proposition for a store credit.
References
Beatty, J., & Samuelson, S. (2015). Business law and the legal Environment. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Mann, R., & Roberts, B. (2012). Essentials of business law and the legal environment. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.