Contract Analysis: Case Study

1500 Words6 Pages
Case Study 2: Contract Analysis Case Study 2: Contract Analysis Liberty University Business Law – BUSI561 Betzaida Aponte Abstract In the contract analysis of Case Study 2, we find what looks like a legal and ethical issue at play. This analysis will cover answers to the following questions: 1. What should you do about continuing to do business with Marshall? 2. If you elect to stop doing business with Marshall, what legal causes of action might he bring against your company, what damages or remedies might he seek, and what legal defenses might your company have? 3. If you stop doing business with Marshall, what are the potential impacts on Marshall’s continued exploration of his faith? What biblical options are available for…show more content…
It was important for Marshall to ensure that the seventeen year old understood what he was doing; in this case it is clear that the seventeen year old did not know or should know, since he was just a delivery boy and not the main person to do business with. Marshal may argue the case that the contract may be binding as the son that signed the contract is now eighteen years old, which is the age of majority. However the law of contract is set up to protect minors. According to Bennett (2012), If a party is below the legal age for contracting , the contract can be voidable and can be disaffirmed any time before reaching the age of majority or within a short time thereafter, this depends on the circumstances (Bennett, 2012). In this case study the circumstances are clear the minor was deceived in signing a contract and did not understand what he was doing. We can defend ourselves by arguing that the contract was signed on a misrepresentation by Marshall, and claim that the contract is voidable. There is also possible fraud that we can use as a defense against the enforcement of the contract. We can demonstrate more than a misunderstanding by the seventeen year old son and argue that the misrepresentation was intentional and fraudulent. According to Kubasec et al., 2015, if fraud exists, genuine assent or a “meeting of the minds” has not taken place and the grounds for cancellation of
Open Document