Dynamic Business Law

First was the verbal agreement between Mr. Stevens’s and the national chain store enforceable. Which pertains to the 1000 pieces, he promised them for the barking mechanism.  The verbal agreement between Mr. Stevens and the national chain store manager is not enforceable unless the manager has enough evidence to back up their claim of an oral agreement.  The problem with the oral agreement is that it may turn into he said, she said. The elements of a valid contract are an offer from one party to another as an agreement to provide a good or service to the other.  Although the manager and Mr. Stevens discussed delivery of the 1000 barking devices. The manager agreed to take delivery of the barking devices there is nothing in writing to enforce the delivery of the products. However, the two parties did not discuss payment for the barking devices. This also includes the intent of both parties to carry out their parts of the contract. A “quasi-contract is not a contract it is an agreement between two parties so that on person is not enriched at the expense of another” (Kubasek, Brown, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017)  With the quasi-contract does not apply because money was not exchanged by either party, so no person is being enriched at the expense of the other.  “A promissory estoppel relies on the personal detriment of her detriment.  The reliance must be foreseeable to the party who did not rely on the contract should have known the other party was relying on the contract." (Kubasek, Brown, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017)  In my opinion, this would not apply either due to the national chain store not relying on the contract as a sole source of income.

This case is about Sam Stevens and the use of his apartment for starting his business in his apartment. Furthermore, the property owner did not have an agreement to limit the use of the apartment to certain activities, so there is no reason that Mr. Stevens cannot start his business in the apartment. If the clause was in the lease, then the property owner could evict him for starting a business within the apartment.  As long as he is not damaging the property in any way.  However, the property owner can evict him because he was disturbing the other neighbors through the covenant of quiet enjoyment.  If the renter disturbs other tenants, he can be evicted from the premises. Even though Mr. Stevens told, the property owner about making the barking devices the landlord was agreeable to the development of those devices. However, the landlord could not foresee the device disturbing other residences within the apartment complex. The only defense I could foresee in defense of being evicted from the apartment is that Sam agrees to move the development of his barking device to another location or he commits to working on the device during the day when most residences are at work.