Question

To whom it may concern,

I would like to thank you in advance for helping me with this question.

Please follow this sample of the format I provide below to answer the question.

Here are the sample question and answer format.

Question. On May 1, John Realty Company offered to sell a real estate parcel called Greenacre to Dallas, Inc, for $1,000,000. The offer was made by telegraph and stated that the offer would expire on May 15. Dallas decided to purchase the property and sent a registered letter to John on May 10 accepting the offer. As a result of unexplained delays in the postal service, the letter was not received by John until May 22. John wishes to sell Greenacre to another buyer who is offering $1,200,000 for the tract of land. Has a contract resulted between John and Dallas? Please explain.

Answer. On May 1, John Realty Company made an offer to sell real property known as Greenacre to Dallas, Inc. This offer had an expiration date of May 15. Dallas sent a formal acceptance to John Realty Company on May 12, well within the expiration deadline of the offer. The acceptance took the form of a registered letter. The letter of acceptance, however, was not received until well beyond the expiration date. In this instance, a valid contract was formed on May 12.

Statement of Law and explanation. The law states that when a reliable medium is used in sending an acceptance, the acceptance is valid when it is sent. It has also been well established that a registered mail qualifies as a reliable medium. For these reasons when the letter of acceptance was sent by Dallas, Inc on May 12, a valid contract came into existence on that date. The fact that the actual acceptance did not reach the offeror until May 22 does not matter. The important point is that the acceptance was sent and took effect within the deadline.

Here is the actual question that I need help with.

Benson Industries contracted with the Wrigley family, the owner and operator of the Chicago Cubs to rent space on the scoreboard on top of the outfield wall. The contract provided that Benson would have the right to request a sign to be placed on the scoreboard and that Benson would have the right to request new signs that Wrigley would have to place on the scoreboard within 48 hours. The first sign Benson requested offered a reward of $5,000 to any ballplayer who hit a home run over the sign.

In one game, Henderson, one of the best hitter in the league, hit one home run over the sign. Benson requested Wrigley to change the sign so that it indicated Benson would pay $2,500 to any pitcher who pitched a no-hit game.

Two weeks after the request to change the sign was made, the original sign had not been changed. The next day, Anderson pitched a no-hit game and Smith hit a home run over the sign.

Benson refuses to pay any of the three players. What are the rights of Benson, Henderson, Anderson, and Smith? Please discuss.

Again, I deeply thank you for helping me with this question.

Answer 1

Answer: Benson industries entered into a contract with the Wrigley family for renting space on the score board on top of the outfield wall, as the wrigley family owned and operated the Chicago Cubs. Under the terms and conditions of the contract Benson had the right to request placement of a sign on the score board and also the right to request new science to be placed on the spot which required Wrigley to make the change within 48 hours. The first sin place by denson the reward of $5,000 to any ball player hitting a homerun over the sign. In one ball game, Henderson, who was one of the best hittters in the league hit one home run over the sign. Benson requested really to change the sign to indicate Benson would pay $2,500 to any pitcher pitching a no hit game. Even two weeks after the request to change the sign was made by Benson to Wrigley, the original sign had not been changed. The next day, Anderson pitched a no hit game and Smith hit a home run over the sign. Benson refused to pay any of the three players. As the contract provided the right to request new signs to Benson with Wrigley having undertaken the duty and obligation change the sign within 48 hours of such request being made the non performance of such duty obligation amounts to breach of contract due to non performance with Benson eligible to sue for breach and claim damages.

The law states that a contract is generally an agreement between two or more parties to perform an act, through entering into an agreement which is legally enforceable. There are certain major factors which need to be fulfilled for a contract to be considered valid and legally enforceable. One of the major factors is the existence of an agreement which is the document which clearly states the reason for the contract, including the terms and conditions applicable upon fulfillment of the promised obligation. The agreement should fulfill the Minimum requirements of a contract as provided by the law of contracts including the names and details of the parties, the subject matter of the contract and terms and conditions which bind it and make it enforceable, void or terminable. The most significant factor is that it should be signed by both parties clearly validating acceptance buy both are all parties involved, as any contract without acceptance is not enforceable and ceases to exist as a contract. Any breach of contract can be compensated through provision of damages to the injured party. The damages applicable in the given scenario are compensatory damages. These damages are awarded for compensating the non breaching party for the resultant loss caused by the breach of contract with an aim to "make the injured party whole again". This may be further divided into expectation damages, which cover an amount equivalent to that which was expected by the injured party from the contract, had it not been breached, on the basis of contract value or market value. Consequential damages compensate the injured party for any indirect damages which may have resulted due to the breach of contract other than contractual loss. For example in ability of contracting party to deliver a machinery a manufacturer in time main result 10th loss of business profits. Consequential damages identified by ensuring that the loss or damage has resulted specifically from the breach of contract and must essentially be a direct result of the breach, and be a result which was reasonably foreseeable by both parties when they entered into the contract. Equitable remedies can also be awarded for breach of contract when monetary damages may not properly compensate the injured.

Benson can sue the Wrigley family demanding compensation for breach of contract due to damages suffered. As the sign offered dollar 5000 to any ball player hitting a home run over the sign with the offer being made by Benson as mentioned on the sign, an offer was made to all the players participating as a unilateral contract comes into existence with the pudding indicating a contractual obligation being formed upon performance of a certain act. Anyone who successfully performs the required obligation a specific performance becomes party to the contract with the other party legally bound and obliged to perform the required contract. Benson is in turn obligated to pay Henderson and Smith the $5,000 each promised on the sign, $5,000 of which we can claim as damages from the wrigley family, as when Smith hit a home run over the sign Benson had already requested Wrigley to change the sign so the obligation arose due to speech of contract by the Wrigley with Benson eligible for compensatory damages. Anderson has no rights as the sign which offered dollar 2500 to any pitcher pitching a no hit game was never put up no unilateral contract was formed with no subsequent obligation arising on the part of Benson as no contract was formed.