First of all, it is worth analyzing whether all the basic principles of drawing up a contract are present in this case. This necessity lies in the fact that the agreement was violated by one of the parties and had specific drafting and wording problems. The basic contract principles are offer, acceptance, and consideration. An offer has been made by the contractors since there is a commitment for Sonya to produce hats in the future. This consideration was a promise to make goods of value in exchange for money. Thus, this element of the contract has existent in the process of making the deal, which means that there are no legal issues.
The value that entices the parties to enter into a contract is a consideration. A contract is distinguished from a gift by the presence of consideration. A gift is an unrequited transfer of property from one person to another without promising something of value in return (The University of New Mexico, Judicial Education Center, n.d.). Failure to follow through on a promise to deliver a gift is not enforceable as a breach of contract since there is no remuneration for the commitment. However, there has not been an acceptance between the parties that the goods would be given as a gift, as Camille, might have assumed.
The term “acceptance” refers to a complete and unequivocal agreement. Depending on the contract, approval can influence words, acts, or performances. In general, the conditions of the offer must be reflected in the agreement. If this is not the case, the acceptance is regarded as a rejection and counteroffer. If the contract is for the sale of things, such as moveable objects between merchants, the acceptance does not have to match the conditions of the offer for the contract to be legal. That works unless the agreement’s terms materially modify the original contract or the offer or objects within a reasonable time frame.
From Sonya’s side, the deal was executed following the original contract proposal. Moreover, the specified product kits were produced beyond the described period. Even though the contract stated that payment would be made upon receipt of the goods, the contract was violated. An important detail is that Sonya did not receive any funds at all, including a 25% advance payment of the order price required for production. The presence of consideration separates a contract from a gift, which is an important distinction. The contract was not in the form of a gift agreement.
On the part of Camille, the critical violation was that she subjected the stipulated conditions to a breach without good reason. As mentioned earlier, reciprocity in a contract is essential because the contracting parties have reached a consensus on the agreement (The University of New Mexico, Judicial Education Center, n.d.). This means that the parties understood and agreed with the main content and terms of the contract. What Camille ended up doing is a violation of the contract’s original terms for the production and supply of goods.
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning the unethical behavior of the customer concerning the contractor. The latter performed the work qualitatively and in record time, providing the goods to the customer. However, the second party refuses to accept and consequently pays for the goods based on conditions not specified in the contract. The product’s possible profitability is the customer’s problem, i.e., Camille, and should have been considered when concluding a contract. The non-compliance with the conditions without a predetermined reason for refusing the goods is an advantage for Sonya. In a court case, she can rely on non-compliance with the contract terms on her part of Camille. As can be seen from the case file, Camille did not stipulate the rejection of the final product due to unprofitability. The terms of the agreement do not consider the refusal due to the possible unprofitability of the goods.
Reference
The University of New Mexico, Judicial Education Center. (n.d.). Elements of a contract — Judicial education center. Judicial Education Center.