Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement Essay

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda

Contracts are the main element of the business world as they regulate relations between parties and ensure that all actors will act following the terms of the agreement to avoid undesired outcomes or fraud. There are various types of contracts that are preconditioned by the character of relations between parties, conditions, and desired outcomes. The primary source of the given agreement is the existing legislation that presupposes the appearance of a certain kind of obligation that should be observed to generate the desired outcome and benefit from the given sort of relations.

We will write a custom essay on your topic a custom Essay on Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement
808 writers online

At the same time, there are severe punishments that are introduced to guarantee that all parties will adhere to the ethics code and act appropriately. Any violations in terms, such as in the proposed Tina Tinker case, can be considered by a court to determine the fault of parties and outline the following course of action.

Regarding the discussing problem, the current jurisdiction, oral contracts are also considered a type of business agreement that is outlined and followed by spoken communication without any written forms (“Legal Information Institute, Oral Contract”). In such situations, it is difficult to appeal or prove the terms of this form of relations if there is a breach; however, it remains a legally accepted form of relationship between business partners.

It means that an actor can appeal to all conditions discussed with his/her potential partner and act in accordance with them, expecting some reward or other good that can be generated in the course of their cooperation (Fisher, 2018). The same situation can be observed in the proposed case as Fiona Flax entered the oral agreement with Owen Owens, the owner of the Serenity store, hoping to produce and sell some ornaments and generate revenue.

The concept of promissory estoppel can also be considered relevant for the given case. It presupposes that any promise is enforceable by law even if it is made without special or formal consideration (Garner, 2019). If a promisor makes a promise to a promisee, both actors engage in a specific sort of relations that are regulated by this very promise (“Legal Information Institute, Promissory Estoppel”). Promissory estoppel is introduced to avoid situations when a promisor does not want to follow conditions discussed in the conversation or argues that an underlying promise should not be legally upheld (Cheeseman, 2018).

At the moment, the doctrine is a part of U.S. law that regulates various agreements in the business sphere. It is applicable to the case as Owen Owens does not want to accept the idea of promissory estoppel and refuses to accept its ability to be legally enforced.

Analyzing the given situation, the case of an oral contract can be observed. Tina Tinkers entered into the agreement with Owen Owens because of their conversation and established terms presupposing that Owen would pay $8 per ornament for a total of $640. Because of the positive experience of past relations and previous business relationships, the contract was not put in writing; however, it still remains enforceable because of the existing legislation. Tina answered her obligations and delivered all ornaments to the store, but Owen refuses to buy them. At the same time, he accepts the fact of their conversation and oral agreement. In such a way, the case can be defined as a breach of an oral contract and promissory estoppel.

1 hour!
The minimum time our certified writers need to deliver a 100% original paper

From the case, Owen’s fault becomes evident because of several factors. First, he accepts the existence of the oral agreement, which can be used as a fact to prove that a sort of contract between these parties was established. Second, although he acknowledges the previous deal, he misunderstands the idea of promissory estoppel and Its ability to be enforced. Under these conditions, accepting the fact that there is credible evidence of the oral agreement, Owen should be administered to observe its terms and buy the provided ornaments at the established price as it is the main factor regulating their business ties.

The decision to find another supplier cannot be considered a reasonable cause for the break-off relations. The application of these two basic doctrines and the consideration of the primary source of the contract can help to resolve the given case.

Altogether, the given case revolves around the oral contract made by Tina Tinkers and Owen Owens, who agreed to produce and buy a certain number of ornaments. However, Owen’s unwillingness to observe its terms serves as a cause for bringing a case to a court because of the non-observation of the basic business laws and the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Thus, if there is no expected resolution, and Owen is not obliged to follow the terms, Tina can appeal to a higher court as one of the possible remedies to avoid undesired outcomes (Cheeseman, 2018). In general, in accordance with the existing legislation that regulates relations between parties in the business sphere, Owen should be enforced to observe the terms of the agreement and his obligations as a promisor who has specific duties.

References

Bryan Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

Henry Cheeseman, Business Law (10th ed. 2018).

James Fisher, Contract variation in the common law: A critical response to Rock Advertising v MWB Business Exchange, 47(3), Common LAW WORLD REVIEW 196 (2018).

Legal Information Institute, Oral Contract. Web.

Remember! This is just a sample
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers

Legal Information Institute, Promissory Estoppel. Web.

Print
Need an custom research paper on Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement written from scratch by a professional specifically for you?
808 writers online
Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, July 23). Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tina-tinkers-case-entering-the-oral-agreement/

Work Cited

"Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement." IvyPanda, 23 July 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/tina-tinkers-case-entering-the-oral-agreement/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement'. 23 July.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement." July 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tina-tinkers-case-entering-the-oral-agreement/.

1. IvyPanda. "Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement." July 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tina-tinkers-case-entering-the-oral-agreement/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Tina Tinker’s Case: Entering the Oral Agreement." July 23, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tina-tinkers-case-entering-the-oral-agreement/.

Powered by CiteTotal, automatic reference maker
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Request the removal
More related papers
Cite
Print
1 / 1