This is a case that concerns contracts between two parties. The contract is about selling and purchasing a business property. According to the facts in the case, there is a contract that has been signed between two parties, Mr. Bibe and Lotts. They are both co-workers and work for the same firm. The legal issue in this case concern understanding of information and contracting. Information through the record books was given to Mr. Bibe for him to sign a contract that would bind him into buying a coffee shop business.
Mr. Bibe who is at the center stage of this case is has entered into a contract with his co –worker Lotts. Lotts feels that Mr. Bibe has earned some money from the bonus of achieving the sales goals in the firm he is working for. Based on this understanding, he gets Mr. Bibe into buying his coffee house business at an amount he thinks that his co-worker can afford. It is important to note that Lotts has information and understands the business better according to the facts presented in this case. He has information that the business has been earning a profit of $30,000 annually. It is on the basis of this information and other materials not mentioned in the case that he manages to convince Mr. Bibe into signing a contract that can bind him into buying the business. The facts of the case indicate that Lotts brought along books containing the business records that showed that indeed the business was profitable. This to an extent can be considered to be information formed from the contract that Mr. Bibe signed concerning the offer to purchase the coffee shop business. Another legal issue concerns the signing of the contract for which he had no adequate information. This is shown by the limited time that was taken before Mr. Bibe was convinced into signing the contract.
It is important to make it clear that Mr.Bibe had no sufficient knowledge and understanding of the contract he was signing. He also did no go through not records adequately to be acquainted with the contents so as to have a good understanding of the business. He was quickly tricked into signing a contract in which he has no adequate understanding. Based on this therefore Mr. Bibe is not bound by the contract he signed simply because he lacked adequate knowledge and understanding. It is also important to note that the authenticity of the records can also be questioned since he was not given enough time to analyze the records and obtain certifications as to whether they are credible or not.
According to the statute Mr. Bibe, who has no understanding, has no power whatsoever to make a contract of any kind, but he is liable for the reasonable value of things furnished to him by Lotts necessary for the support of his family. He, therefore, was under no obligation to sign a contract of which he had no knowledge about but he will be liable for the record books he was furnished with by the other party. Mr. Bibe should not be worried as he can clarify the matter to Lotts as soon as possible and defend his position by stating that he has no adequate understanding of the business and hence he has changed his mind.