Introduction
In this paper, the case of Landry, a homeowner, against Edwards is under consideration. Landry and Edwards agreed to sell Edwards’ second-hand storage shed; however, this storage shed is now in Edwards’ backyard, and Edwards does break the issues under the contract and refuses to perform it at all. Edwards created this storage shed independently and promised to move and install it in Landry’s backyard (the installation could take at least one day). However, Edwards’ business connected with the storage shed’s building and installation has gone bankrupt, and Edwards does not have an opportunity to stick to the points, mentioned in the contract. This is why it is necessary to prove that Landry still has the right to ask Edwards to move the storage shed to his backyard and be responsible for all losses.
Arguments for Landry
“Contract law lays down rules which are designed to apply in any contractual situation, regardless of who the parties are, their relationship to each other, and the subject matter of a contract.” (Elliott & Quinn, 2007, p. 4) According to the contract law, there are two parties: an offeror (who makes an offer) and an offeree (to whom an offer is made). The duties of the parties are determined by the contract and examined by both parties. To get a clear understanding of the case between Edwards (the offeree) and Landry (the offeror), it is better to know the meanings of such words as ‘specific performance’ and ‘restatement issue’. Specific performance is the process when the equitable court “directs one of the parties to perform its obligations as specified in the contract.” (Mulcahy and Tilliotson, 2008, p. 207) Usually, this process takes place when a seller/producer decides to change his/her mind because of some reasons and refuses to follow the duties, pointed out in the contract. In this case, Edwards has to craft and move the storage shed to Landry’s backyard. Landry turns out to be the aggrieved party of the contract, and the court has to make Edwards keep his promise and move the storage shed. This is why the restatement issue of supervision over the specific performance cannot be a problem for Landry because Edwards has already entered the contract and has to follow its requirements.
Counter-Arguments for Edwards
In this case, Edwards also tries to argue that, as his business has already gone bankrupt, he cannot perform this delivery without proper technologies. However, it was mentioned that this storage shed is a personal production of Edwards, and only he is aware of how to deliver this good and not to damage it. This is why it is one more proof that Landry has all rights to ask for this delivery from Edwards, and Edwards cannot argue.
Some case laws may also help this very case. But first, it is better to clear up what case law means. It is a collection of writings, which provide explanations of the verdicts in cases. Case law is usually created by judges according to their own rules; judges present their decisions and explain them. Certain case laws can be rather helpful in this case to compare and find out why the decision of judges should support Landry and ask Edwards to meet the conditions of the contract. It is possible to pay attention to the cases like One in a Million or Godfrey v Demon; these cases are all about contracts with different violations, which hurt offerors because the offerees do not follow the points, discussed in the contract (register agreements). Even if there is the major topic is not quite similar to the one under consideration, still, the ways, used in these cases to solve the problems may help in the case of Landry and Edwards.
Conclusion
A contract helps to make the promise, given by one person, legal and recognizable by the law. (Chen-Wishart, 2007, p.1) From the legal perspective, the case of Edwards and Landry is considered to be rather interesting and educative. Even though Edwards, the offeree, cannot keep his promise according to the contract because of sudden bankrupt, he has to complete the delivery to Landry’s backyard and present the storage shed, as was mentioned in the contract. When people give promises and use contracts to make this agreement legal, it is necessary to analyze all pros and cons and take into consideration possible vis major. In this case, Landry has all the rights to ask for the delivery and expect positive results.
Reference List
- Mulcahy, L. & Tilliotson, J. (2008). Contract Law in Perspective. Taylor & Francis.
- Elliott, C. & Quinn, F. (2007). Contract Law. Pearson education.
- Chen-Wishart, M. (2007). Contract Law. Oxford University Press.