Question

Case Study Two: Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building where he has been working on his new invention, a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store that sells safety products wants to sell Sam’s product exclusively. Although Sam and the chain store never signed a contract, Sam verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units.

Sam comes home from work one day and finds two letters in his mailbox. One is an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn, telling him he has to be out of the apartment in 30 days because his barking device has been bothering the other tenants. It also states that Sam was not allowed to conduct a business from his apartment. Sam is angry because he specifically told Quinn that he was working on a new invention, and Quinn had wished him luck. The second letter is from the chain store, demanding that Sam deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

A. Analyze the elements of this case to determine whether a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. Support your response by identifying the elements of a valid contract in your analysis.

B. Assume there is not a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Analyze the elements of a quasi-contract and a promissory estoppel to determine whether the chain store would prevail on a claim of either. Why or why not? Include support for your analysis.

C. Identify the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant under a standard residential lease agreement.

D. Based upon those rights and obligations, does Sam’s landlord have grounds to evict? Why or why not?

E. Further, what defenses might Sam raise to an eviction action? Support your response.

Answer 1

ANSWER:

A)

Here we have to determine whether a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store

A contract is valid if it fulfills the following criteria:

i) If the contract has been signed by the either parties and not agreed on verbal terms

ii) Both the parties mutually agree to perform the agreement and each of them has specific consent to it.

As per this case concern ,No valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. For any contract to be valid, it should come under the purview of law. All the conditions and liabilities must be properly written down and registered and they should be agreed upon by both the parties. Though an oral contract is a valid one, it can be hard to prove the legality of such contract as there are no written legal bindings.

B)

The quasi contract case of the chain store will not prevail, as quasi contract is a contract which is enforced by a court of law upon the parties, whether they may agree to it or not. In this case, court's order was not involved.

Promissory Estoppel helps and affected party to recover from a loss suffered due to one's promise not kept. For legal enforcement, it must have the three elements, promisor, promise and detriment suffered by the promise. In this case, the promise is the chain store which was promised by Sam, the promisor that he will ship 1000 instruments to the chain store.

However, he was not able to supply the same because of the eviction notice given by the landlord of Sam. Hence, the detriment is suffered by the Chain store due to promise of Sam which was not kept. This needs to be proved by the chain store in a court with reasonable belief that they have actually suffered losses. If reasonable cause is produced by the chain store they have a strong case on the basis of promissory estoppel.

C)

Sam as a tenant has the right to enjoy the premises that he has rented and the obligation is that he should not use the property at the detriment of the landlord or do something in the premises which is strictly prohibited by the landlord. The landlord in this case has the right to evict the tenant in case he causes nuisance in the property and the landlord has the obligation to let the tenant enjoy the premises as long as there is no violation of the grounds of tenancy.

D)

Sam's landlord has the right to evict Sam because the premise was firstly rented for residential purpose. Secondly, the nuisance caused by Sam was escaping the premise and disturbing others which is a ground for eviction of the tenant. Thirdly, Sam did not rent a commercial premise to carry out his invention and carrying commercial activities in a residential premise is a ground for eviction.

E)

Sam can raise the defense that he had already informed the landlord that he was carrying out some invention and the landlord having heard that wished him luck. This shows that the landlord irrespective of the tenancy terms impliedly agreed to what Sam was doing in his flat.

If you have any doubts please comment and please don't dislike.

PLEASE GIVE ME A LIKE. ITS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME.