Law of Contract: The Case of James and the Kitchen Wizard

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Law of contracts
Analysis of the Case
List of References

Introduction

Businesses are normally guided by diverse business laws, one of them being the law of contract. The Law of contract usually binds two or more parties. Formal contracts are always made relevant by the provision of formal documents such as deeds. However, for the contract to be binding the consideration must have some value and merits on both the buyer and the seller; the parties which are involved in the process. James and The Kitchen Wizard have been involved in a transaction the implications of which created some level of conflict between him and the company. James feels aggrieved concerning the transaction because some of the items which were supposed to be part of the kitchen set such as the oven and the marble top bench were not included in the final prefabricated kitchen set that he had ordered.

Law of contracts

The seller in the course of the transaction uses a contract to stipulate the terms in which he specifies that the company would not be held accountable for, in failure of the installers to fit the cupboards within the defined space of the kitchen. The contract that James was made to sign was meant to solidify the trust between James and the Kitchen Wizard and as such should have been taken as a source of cordial relations between the parties involved in this transaction. The concept of consideration on both the buyer and the seller is vital for any transaction to be carried out because this is likely to impact greatly on how the two parties relate with one another.

This concept stipulates that the seller measures up to the expectations of the buyer of the goods and that the buyer replicates the gesture by being able to pay for the goods and services availed to him by the seller.

In business law, therefore, James and Kitchen Wizard have an obligation to meet their promises regarding the transaction that they are engaging in to ensure that neither of the parties is negatively impacted by the failure of one of the parties to live up to their obligations. The seller and James had an obligation to execute their promises as stated within the initial agreement when the transaction that enabled the exchange of goods between them was taking place. The selling company had given James a promise in form of both a written contract and an oral commitment that the price paid for the transaction was valid and was commensurate to the goods and services James had sought to obtain from the company for this purpose. The salesperson that was charged with the responsibility of selling the goods, who James interacted with within the course of that business transaction made promises to James, and as such since the salesperson was acting on behalf of Kitchen Wizard the promises made to James were valid and should have been met by the seller.

The salesperson had promised James that the oven would be included together with the marble top bench in the final delivery of the goods that he was to receive from the company as part of the new kitchen set that he had wanted. Even though this was not included in the contract, the fact that James was made to believe that he was purchasing the items that he had wanted by the salesperson gives validity to the feelings of injustice that were done against him by the seller. The promise made to James has legal validity in essence and therefore whether the written contract that he was made to sign by the seller can make him not have any grounds for legal recourse do not have any merit because the salesperson made promises upon which James was made to pay for the goods obtained. Since the two parties had both entered into a mutually beneficial business transaction, there was a duty on both parties to honor the spirit of the agreement to eliminate any feelings of mistrust and resentment afterward.

The consideration by the seller should have been adequate so as to meet the expectation of James who had made payments expecting all that was promised both in the contract and by the company’s salespersons would be met. The seller is morally obligated to provide all the goods that were supposed to be delivered to James to ensure that he adequately gets what he thought he paid for before the goods were obtained. This would ensure that the performance of the seller concerning the goods that were to be delivered to James is beyond reproach and as such James would be satisfied with the treatment and competence showed by the seller in meeting its end of the bargain. The concept of ‘Promissory Estoppel’ can be applied regarding the transaction undertaken by both parties and the promises which both parties committed to uphold before the transaction was carried out. James relied on a promise created by the salesperson that the payments being made would cover the cost of the oven and the marble top bench.

James had placed his hopes on acquiring the kitchen goods from the seller as had been promised by the salesperson and the failure to deliver these goods exposed him to distress because he was of the assumption that the transaction would go on as smoothly as he had anticipated. The salesperson had made a promise which made James as the buyer to assume that everything that had been said to him would be carried out and he would receive all the goods that he had wanted before he made any payments for them. The seller cannot rely entirely on the written contract as a basis of its defense because the salesperson had made a promise to James that he would receive all the products and the services that he had requested.

Analysis of the Case

James made the decision to buy the fabricated kitchen from The Kitchen Wizard after consultation with the sales representative. At first, James was wary of getting into this contract because of a number of issues. The first issue was that in the contract, there was an exclusion clause. James did not like the fact that this firm exempted itself from any damages that would occur the moment the item was sold off. According to James, he wanted a new fabricated kitchen fitted in his kitchen. This was his intent when he visited this store. Upon realization that the firm had exempted itself from the process of fitting this fabricated kitchen, James developed some reluctance towards the purchase.

Another factor that caused this reluctance was the fact that in the contract, there was no mention of an oven. This was one of the most important gadgets required in his new kitchen. As he was keen to ensure that this new kitchen was furnished with all modern gadgets, the lack of the oven in the contract meant that this was not the right place to buy the item. He asked the salesperson about this, and he received a reassuring answer. The salesperson told him that although this item was not included in the contract, it would be availed to him during the delivery of this purchase.

He was still not convinced. Upon realizing this, the salesperson further informed him that the package would include a marble top instead of a Formica top bench. It is this that made James sign this contract. According to Gibson and Fraser (2011, p. 36), James entered a binding deal with this firm upon signing the document. In his knowledge, he knew that the contract he was signing included other items that though were not included in this contract, would be availed as was promised. It was also his expectation that the fitting of the fabricated kitchen would be a success and that at the end of this process he would have what he desired.

However, the fitting was done very poorly. According to Burma (2009, p. 89), James was duly informed in the contract that the firm would not take part in the fitting of the fabricated kitchen, and therefore would not be liable if anything went wrong. Something did go wrong in this process and James feel aggrieved. Unfortunately, the law of contract does not favor him because the contract was clear on this. He may therefore fail to get a favorable ruling from a court of law.

The purchase lacked two very important items that James was promised, a marble top bench and an oven. These items were not in the contract, but upon deliberations with the salesperson, there was a mutual agreement between the two parties. Gibson and Fraser (2011, 25) say that an employee of a firm is part of that firm and therefore any statement from such an employee has binding consequences. The contract that was signed by James did not include such items as a marble top bench or an oven. However, this contract went hand in hand with the promise made by the salesperson as this was the statement that made him accept the offer. Any deviation from it will be directly interpreted as a deviation from the contract signed. Kitchen Wizards will therefore have a case to answer in a court of law over this. James should therefore take this direction of the case and avoid the case about the poor fitting of the kitchen.

List of References

Busma, G 2009, Contract Law, McMillan, Publishers, London.

Gibson, A, & Fraser, D 2011, Business Law, 5^th Ed. Pearson, Melbourne.

Click Here To Order Now!

Law of Contract: The Case of James and the Kitchen Wizard

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)