A contract is a mutual agreement of obligation between two people or parties reaching consent. In most cases, such commitments are enforced by the law. The arrangement involves one side making an offer, which the other party accepts. A contract consists of such elements as offer and acceptance, appropriate consideration, and legality (Eisenberg, 2018). The parties involved should also have the contractual capacity to commit to the pact. Applying the law in contracting means that there are consequences if any participant forfeits the rules pertaining to the engagement. Therefore, breach of contract necessitates legal measures for failing to honor the deal or hindering the execution of the promise by the other party. This negligence is a case of punitive damage for which the complainant requires compensation for money and time wastage.
The scenario presented involves two individuals, Johnny, who is not a merchant under the Uniform Commercial Code, and his neighbor Mark, from whom he offers to buy a car for $30,000. The latter requires some time to consider the offer to which Johnny agrees and puts down in writing that his proposition is going to remain open for fourteen days. After a week, Johnny sees another car that fascinates him, buys it and informs Mark of his intention to revoke the initial offer. In response, Mark insists that Johnny’s proposal was in writing and still holds it. Johnny apologizes, saying he cannot keep the agreement but promises to give mark $10,000 for the assistance that he had received from him in the previous year around the house. Appeased, Mark accepts only for Johnny to annul his second pledge after a week. The former decides to sue Johnny for breach of contract on the two commitments, buying the car and the $10,000 offer.
There was a valid contract between the two, but Johnny dissipated both Marks’s time and money. He Hastily offers to buy the car instead of informing him that he hasn’t made a final decision and needs to check more cars before settling on one. Johnny also made the mistake of writing down his promise to Mark. Purchasing a car requires a lot of research and inquiries instead of choosing the first option due to the availability of more varieties that might even be cheaper in the market. After being approached by Mark, Johnny should have told him that he had not made a final decision because he still wanted to look around; therefore, he was unwilling to commit. The promising note written by Johnny caused the car to be withheld from other customers willing to purchase it. Mark, the car owner, had the opportunity to sell the machine, but he had the integrity to hold it. Johnny’s actions concerning the car are wrong, and he deserves to pay for them.
There is evidence of an oral contract between Mark and Johnny, although it is related to the first agreement, which Johnny also broke. He acknowledges Mark’s help on his property and offers to compensate him, making the latter cancel his initial disappointment on the car contract. This agreement makes Johnny legally liable to atone for all the words he fails to honor.
Breach of a contract is concluded when a party involved fails to perform their role and doesn’t give a valid excuse. In this view, the elements of a contract are not fully satisfied; therefore, Mark has an entitlement to take legal action against Johnny (Luntz et al., 2017). Having kept his part of the agreement, Mark deserves compensation for indemnity.
References
Eisenberg, M. A. (2018). The Theory of Efficient Breach. In Foundational principles of contract law. Oxford University Press.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Harder, S., & Grant, G. (2017). Torts: Cases and commentary (8th ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths.