Introduction
The case is based on business law on the issues of elements of a contact and their application. Fiona took her favourite Chanel suede jacket to Black Tie Dry cleaning. She paid a premium price to have the jacket individually dry-cleaned. At the store she was handed with a docket that had the terms and conditions but she did not see them. The paper gives advice to Fiona on the situation and the possibilities that Black Tie Dry cleaning has. It also analyses the situation given Fiona was a regular customer which is supported on reasons on the stand given.
Analysis
Fiona and Black Tie Dry cleaning were in a contract when the dry cleaner agreed to clean the jacket and she agreed her jacket be cleaned. By the time Fiona took the docket that had terms and conditions a contract was fully realised. A contract is basically an agreement between two or more parties’ coupled by other elements that makes it valid (Dillavou & Howard 1948). An offer was made to Fiona where she had the chance of not accepting the offer. However, by the time she took the docket she become part of an agreement although she did not see the terms and conditions available on the wall. An offer constitutes the willingness by the offerer to the offeree to “act or refrain from acting along certain lines” (Dillavou & Howard 1948). The offer needs to be communicated to the offeree through a means that is understandable to the intended party. When an offer is made to the public, it is communicated through the use of public notice or through the use of posted notices from which the offeree learns them before entering to the contract. In the case of Fiona and Black tie Dry cleaning, an offer was made with terms and conditions which were communicated to the offeree (Fiona) through a public notice which was the wall of the premise. This qualified the contract as viable and legally binding to both parties. The terms and conditions were that the company was not liable for any damage arising or a delay made. However, Fiona did not see the notice sign now the issue that arises is whether Black Tie dry cleaning should be liable to the damages made or it can escape the liability of the damages.
Based on the case two important determinants of the case are whether the claims made by the Fiona were genuine or she was ignorant to notice note to read the terms and conditions sign on the premise of the dry cleaner. Supposing that the offeree (Fiona) claim is genuine then company is not liable to the payment of any compensation on any damages that arose. It is assumed that through an acceptance of an agreement an offeree has agreed to the terms and the conditions offered in the contract. Field (2010) note that any individual who signs an agreement that he/she deems to be a contract and “does not read the terms and conditions that person will be bound by the contract and will not be entitled to plead mistake.” This means that Fiona does not have the right to complain and the company cannot be liable to the damages that occurred because Fiona did not read the terms and conditions. Fiona took the docket and assumed its contents thus skipping the terms and conditions that applied. The contract agreements were binding as all the terms and conditions were given. The same stand applies given that Fiona ignored to read the docket that was handled to her and was not able to see the notice. ‘Ignorance of the law is no an excuse’ meaning that one has to take liability of their actions even when they have ignored the law.
The allegation by Fiona that she did not see the notice is merely an ignorance which is not an excuse to the consequences that befall her. The contract was legally binding because it had an agreement through the issuance of a docket, and the involved parties were competent and in sound mind. In no part of the scenario does it occur that Fiona was mentally unstable, illiterate or blind. If these were applicable then the contract would be void and Black Tie dry cleaning would be liable for the damages that were inflicted on Fiona jacket. The assent of the involved parties was genuine since Fiona took the docket that explained everything and by its acceptance without complains, makes it genuine. A contract should be supported by considerations to make it genuine (US Legal Inc 2010). By consideration it means that a contract can have benefit to the promisor or be detrimental to the promise. Based on the case, the promisor (Black Tie Dry cleaning) benefited by getting the premium pay while on the other hand the promisee (Fiona) whose jacket is damaged. The subject of the matter was legally binding because all the terms and conditions were sufficiently stated and understandable by the parties involved as no terms that were omitted or assumed by the parties. The elements of a contract were all present in the contract that was between the Black Tie Dry cleaning and Fiona and based on the arguments and explanations the company is not liable to any damages that were made.
Given that Fiona was a frequent customer to the Black Tie Dry cleaning, the same would apply. Being a frequent customer does not make one excusable by the law and be compensated for a damage that occurred. In fact, this makes it more binding and genuinely for the company not to pay for any damages. Being a regular customer means that Fiona had all the time to read the terms and conditions on different occasions but she did not see them. It also means that Fiona had been assuming the docket thus not able to read and comply with the terms and conditions. Lastly, it is of sheer knowledge that Fiona had more than one chance to read the terms and the conditions but did not read them making her ignorant of the law. This is because if she had at once read the docket she would have seen the terms and conditions and either accepted the offer or rejected it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if all the necessary elements are contained in a contract that makes it legally binding. Based on the arguments and explanations, it can be concluded that Fiona ignored the contents in the docket issued and assumed its contents. This makes her liable for the damages and Black Tie Dry cleaning cannot be held accountable for the damage that occurred as it had maintained its end of the bargain through considerations. It also provided terms and conditions that Fiona ignored either genuinely or by choice.
Reference List
Dillavou, E. R & Howard, C. G. 1948, Principles of business law. Web.
Field, C. 2010, Elements of a contract. Web.
US Legal Inc. 2010, Contracts. Web.