Business Law In answering the first question, following considerations are made: In the first question, Ty had put up the sketch in a distressed woodframe that his parents hung over their fireplace and this is the invitation to offer. In para 4 Ty offered to sell the sketch to Rem, where Rem made an offer to Ty for 100 bucks along with a video game and pizza, whereas in return a counter offer was made by Rem worth 20 bucks, but was rejected by Ty, and the final offer stood at 100 bucks.
Looking at the aspects of counter offer, offer and invitation to offer, an invitation to offer is when a person makes an attempt to showcase his desire to sell a particular thing. An offer Is made with respect to the monetary value and a counter offer is made in return to the offer.
The consideration in the present scenario is the video game, pizza and the money along with the sketch. Following is the definition of consideration:
“Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances”
It is clear from the above definition that the definition matches with the content provided in the paper.
Answering Part C of the first question, the three incapacity doctrines under Contract Law are:
1. Mental Incapacity
The present facts of the case pertains to a minor entering into a contract, since any person below the age of 18years is a minor and cannot take part in a contract. Since Ty is below the age of 18 years, Roes are entitled to disaffirm Ty’s “agreement” to sell the Van-Damm artwork to Rem, obtaining the artwork back from Rem.
Unconscionability is the ground which Roes can invoke to claim relief from Rem. Roes has to pay certain monetary damages as part of the relief from Rem.
According to the commercial lease code, every lease document has to be in signing since it is a document of contract and therefore to invoke any legal action such document must be in written format. Rem cannot invoke his rights of lease until and unless his lease is signed with the parties. Without having signed the lease agreement, he has not become party to such contract and therefore it cannot be ascertained whether he considered entering into the contract or not.
The clause to terminate the document is not improper and does not curtail the rights of the individual. Every individual is given a right to exit the contract which is mentioned within the terms of the contract and such right is part and parcel of the existing structure of the contract.
If Rem were to sue Force to enforce Force’s “promise” to allow Rem to use the Santa Monica space for his Van-Damm exhibition, would Rem win?
No, Rem would not win as there is no written agreement which has been signed between the parties. Since there is no written agreement between the parties it would be impossible to ascertain whether such a contract existed, and therefore it is impossible for Rem to prove such a fact before the court of law.
If Rem were to sue Ms. Relief to enforce the terms of the Commercial Lease document (Exhibit “A”, attached) to allow Rem to lease the Beverly Hills space for his Van-Damm exhibition, would Rem win?
The answer to this question is also in negative for the same reasons as mentioned for the previous question.