There are a variety of factors that must be considered in this case. The existence of a contract of continuous supply, may or may not be valid. The first and foremost issue is the fact that the contract was signed with malicious . Many contracts that are signed by minors are not valid unless the have the parents signature also. Another issue that must be considered is the fact that his son had no
Contracts
The contract that Marshall had your son sign may be considered invalid on a wide variety of fronts. The first and foremost being a minors capacity to contract. A minor has been found in courts incapable of executing a contract unless it provides substantial benefit to the minor. (INSERT SOURCE) In this case the minor did not even look …show more content…
In the Uniform Commercial Code 2-306 it states: “no quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or in the absence of a stated estimate to any normal or otherwise comparable prior output or requirements may be tendered or demanded.” Based upon this, it is unreasonable for Marshall to require that he be supplied with “all the product he needs.” With any product or business there are finite limits to the amount of product that may be procured at any one time. In addition, a business generally has the right to raise prices if necessary. Marshall may state that he had an “implied contract.” Under the principle of “Promissory Estoppel.” However a business owner must have the right to change the prices of goods, even in an implied contract. (2-306 Output Requirements and Exclusive Dealings.) The business owner could potentially give Marshall a 30 day notice that he is terminating his contract. This would give marshall the necessary time to procure a new supplier of Muscadines. If the contract was indeed termianted Marshall may attempt to seek a court order to require products to be supplied. If this occurs, the best course of action would be to reach a settlement outside of …show more content…
The most advantageous solution would be to offer Marshall the opportunity to purchase products at the an increased rate. If he can match the increased rates that the other company is offering, he can continue to purchase products. One of the roles of pricing is to control demand, and ensure that supply meets demand. Because the contract that Marshall has is legally unenforceable, the best solution would be to draft a new contract. A new contract may include: set pricing, quota, and timeline agreements. If Marshall needs additional product, he is free to seek the products from a different
Contracts
The contract that Marshall had your son sign may be considered invalid on a wide variety of fronts. The first and foremost being a minors capacity to contract. A minor has been found in courts incapable of executing a contract unless it provides substantial benefit to the minor. (INSERT SOURCE) In this case the minor did not even look …show more content…
In the Uniform Commercial Code 2-306 it states: “no quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or in the absence of a stated estimate to any normal or otherwise comparable prior output or requirements may be tendered or demanded.” Based upon this, it is unreasonable for Marshall to require that he be supplied with “all the product he needs.” With any product or business there are finite limits to the amount of product that may be procured at any one time. In addition, a business generally has the right to raise prices if necessary. Marshall may state that he had an “implied contract.” Under the principle of “Promissory Estoppel.” However a business owner must have the right to change the prices of goods, even in an implied contract. (2-306 Output Requirements and Exclusive Dealings.) The business owner could potentially give Marshall a 30 day notice that he is terminating his contract. This would give marshall the necessary time to procure a new supplier of Muscadines. If the contract was indeed termianted Marshall may attempt to seek a court order to require products to be supplied. If this occurs, the best course of action would be to reach a settlement outside of …show more content…
The most advantageous solution would be to offer Marshall the opportunity to purchase products at the an increased rate. If he can match the increased rates that the other company is offering, he can continue to purchase products. One of the roles of pricing is to control demand, and ensure that supply meets demand. Because the contract that Marshall has is legally unenforceable, the best solution would be to draft a new contract. A new contract may include: set pricing, quota, and timeline agreements. If Marshall needs additional product, he is free to seek the products from a different