The Case of Non-Delivered Services: Contract Law

A contract is described as an expressed or written agreement involving two or more parties. One of the parties is expected to provide some services or goods to the other, and in return, get some consideration according to the agreed terms. There are six essential elements that any contact must contain for it to be regarded as legally enforceable. For the case of Smiles and the festival, there is an express contract. Each of the parties in any deal has rights which are enforced by courts of law. As indicated, Smiles and Doug entered into contact and the said services were expected to be offered by the 29th of July.

However, the facilities were not provided in the specified date. When Smiles turns up in the following day, the Festival had already lost a lot of money. From the negotiations, the two parties got a legal contract. Through Smiles may have failed to turn up as required by the event organizer, he made it on the following day. Doug offered to but Smiles on for one hour with an intention that he could have recouped the lost money. This was a less critical moment since it was broadcasted at five p.m.Smiles could not get his money since Doug claimed that he had missed the high slot. Also, Doug was furious that he could only offer them a tenner for their taxi home.

From this case, Smiles has rights to sue the Doug. The contract which the two parties entered had all the elements, and thus, it was legally enforceable. Doug gave an offer where the broadcast services could be provided specifically on the 29th of July. Therefore, Smiles had the responsibility to make sure that all the services could be provided as agreed. When Smiles turns up, although late, Doug could still offer him another slot with hopes to recoup the lost money. This contract had a consideration or price of $ 200 000 but, the Festive lost $ 500,000. Thus, Doug could be right by denying Smiles his money with thoughts that the breach was intentional. However, given that what happened to Smiles was unintentional, he still had rights to remedies. It can be argued that when the two parties got into an agreement, no clause could settle damages in case of a breach. Also, Smiles argument is based on the fact that the losses incurred by the festival were not as a result of his failure to turn up. Doug had allowed another person who people never liked to see. This could have been the possible cause of the losses incurred by the organization.

Also, later, Smiles turns up even though his voice was horrible and during this time, there were no losses despite the condition of his voice. Thus, Smiles offered the services as agreed. The argument can also be based on the idea that during the time of the signing of the contract, the two parties had not decided on the quality of services that could be offered. Despite being late, Smiles was given a slot to make the broadcast and thus, he deserved to be compensated. What Doug was trying to suggest has taxi tenner was part of the expenses. Doug, in his response, had agreed that the festival could cover all other expenses for the appearance. Thus, there was no way of honoring part of the contract and ignoring other terms.

Smiles deserved his full compensation plus the costs. If Doug had indeed attributed the losses to the failure of Smiles to turn up, then, he couldn’t have risked offering him another slot. To smiles, the 5 p. m slot provided in the following day was compensation of what he ought to have done the previous day. Thus, he delivered the services as agreed in the contract terms. Also, Doug, in his letter had failed to provide some of the specific clauses that could have sorted the breach of the contract. This contract did not give any clause or a statement of the risk of liability. Doug had not given Smiles the consequences of not offering the services as agreed. Thus, a failure to pay him all the agreed sum of money was a breach of the contract. Also, this was an express business agreement here the terms are both oral and in written form. The time and date were specified regarding this deal. However, Smiles failed to prompt the organizer to put one of the old timers on air. The Festival made a lot of losses against the hopes of the organizer. Also, Smiles can defend himself by the fact that his voice had been affected by natural circumstances which he couldn’t have controlled. To some extent, the festive could have made the same loss even if Smiles appeared. His voice was horrible, and thus, the losses incurred by the organization were not as a result of his failure. Smiles can also support this fact that the damage was a result of other circumstances well known by the organizers of the festival. The contract had no limitation or exemption clauses.

These are terms that could bind the offeree to pay the festive all the damages as a result of his failure to turn up. As agreed, Smiles could be paid for the services offered. Upon the completion of his work, he deserved all the money plus the travel expenses. Smiles relied on the terms provided by Doug in the second agreement. Thus, it can be argued that since Doug accepted to offer Smiles another chance on the second day, the first contract could be said to be invalidated. His acceptance to give Smiles a second chance was an indication that he got into another agreement which he thought could get the lost revenue. If the second broadcast could have yielded good profits, Doug could have paid Smiles. Thus, the festive had no other option than to remedy Smiles all the consideration as provided in the contract. Even though the second contract was not written, it was express, and if the offeree could do well to help the festive recoup the lost revenue, the payment could have been made in full amount with the other expenses.

Doug showered a clear intention that he was ready to reconsider the deal and thus, he offered Smiles another chance. If Doug could have denied Smiles a slot to appear on the broadcast, then he could be justified by his failure to make the agreed payments. However, his attempt to recover what was lost using the terms in the previous contract was a breach of the agreement. Thus, Smiles had rights to be compensated his full amount for the services he offered. Section 2 part AAArchers restaurant made an offer to all its clients that they could get a free Moet served with their meals. Thus, the clients rely on this advert and decide to dine in this hotel. Any intention by the restaurant to change this offer is s breach of its proposal to the clients. There was no specific clause in this suggestion that people could be served on first come first served basis. Bob and Mary are part of the clients two read the broadcast and decided to go for dinner in the restaurant. Thus, they are a right to be served the Moet given that by 8 pm, they had got to the front of the queue. Also, the terms of this offer specified that two who could qualify had to be sited in a table of at least two. Mary and Bob thus trained to get this offer. It is wrong for the waiters to say that they were out of the Moet while the clients still saw them.

Also, there were long queues as a result of the announcement of this offer. Thus, the clients relied on the terms of the contract, and they decided to have their meals at this restaurant. Also, Bob and Mary had rights to be compensated for the waste of time and resources to get here. There were many more other hotels they could have opted to have their meal. However, their decision to come to this restaurant was based on the offer as given in the broadcast. Their presence the queue was as a result of the massive crowds of people. When the waiters offer them another alternative, this nullifies the argument that they were late. Offering apple or free orange juice was not what the hotel had promised to deliver. Thus, Bob and Mary’s rights had been violated, and they had to be compensated. B For Jim and his friends, they have no rights to claim any bottle of Moet from the restaurant. For any offer, both parties must have a legal capacity or a sound mind to stick to the agreements of the contract. Jim and his friends had been sitting in the hotel from 6. 45 p.m. however, they were not sober and thus, they could not notice the queuing by other clients to be served. Those who had seen the offer had to queue so that they get served. Even though Jim and his friends filled the table, they were not sober to recognize a smart deal made within the restaurant. This, it is clear that these friends could not enjoy such benefits.

They realize that there was an offer and they had not been served any free drink. However, his realization was late since the restaurant had exhausted the drinks. Just like any other contract, this was an offer with all the terms of the agreement implying that those clients who read the advert had to enjoy the free drinks. Jim has the ability to remember the offer when they are leaving, possibly, when he is sober. Thus, Larry is right to deny them that they could not get the drinks. Also, Jim asks to have one yet they are ten of them.Being drunk or incapacitated cannot grant one a chance to enjoy the benefits of a contract. In many cases, these people have no sound mind to make a judgment.

Thus, the hotel cannot be liable for not serving them with drinks. It was their fault that they could not recognize an offer served in the restaurant where they sat for long. Only those who accepted the offer and queued enjoyed the free drinks. Also, Jim and his friends could be reminded that the free drinks were served with people who ordered meals. c. Vera, together with her family has come to the hotel at 10 p.m. The offer had been given in the morning, and thus, she had decided to go with her family for the same. In her statement, Vera claims that hr coming to the restaurant was based on the information Vera heard and relied upon from the radio. She goes to Liv and asks for the offer for her family.

In this case, all the necessary four elements of a contract are stated. The hotel and Vera gave a suggestion has made acceptance by coming to enjoy the benefits. At this time, she deserves to be served with the Moet. Vera has forgone several other restaurants just to go here for the offer. Also, she must have incurred travel and additional costs to come to the restaurant. This condition prompts her all the rights to get the free juice and other drinks as given in the advertisement. Thus, her free bubbly was her right since it was an offer. However, she had not ordered any meal. This condition may imply that she has no right to claim the drinks.

From the contract, it was clear that all the Moet could be served free with customer meals. This condition meant that those who had meals were the only ones who could enjoy this offer. Also, it is clear that she relied on the part of the contract and may not have read it keenly. The condition that those who could come to the restaurant could get free Moet served with their meals. Thus, Larry cannot offer Vera and family any drink unless she gets served with a meal. d. It was the norm for the staff to eat all the left food for their dinner as soon as they completed their shifts. When Billy, the owner of the restaurant walks in, he finds the staff enjoying the free drinks. The staff members were drinking Jeroboam of champagne. This was based on Larry’s decision. In their argument, Larry responded to the owner that they were doing based on the words of the advert.

From the radio advert, all customers who had meals on that day were to be served with a Jeroboam of Moet. Thus, the owner of this restaurant had all right to make the staff and Larry pay for the champagne. Even though Larry could be right that they were to take a free drink, the provision of the advert was unambiguous. The free drink was explicitly a Moet and not champagne. Bill need to be compensated by Larry who had keeps the drink for the other staff members. The contract was for all clients who could have meals o that day. Clients bought food and then, they got served with a free drink which was specified. The contract between the hotel owner and the workers was that they could eat all the left food for free. There was no indication or term that they qualified for a free drink. This offer was only meant for clients of that day, and thus, any attempt by the manager or any staff to enjoy its benefits was a breach.