Fur Coat Case Summary

1. “The Gold Coin” and “Fur Coat” are a pairing of caselets which exhibit the theme of an offering. This theme may be described as when a party is offered something (or in this case, advertised something as an offer), and the other party does not follow through with completing the exchange. In Gold Coin, the advertisement for the item created a binding offer which obliged the seller to honor the ad (even though it was out of stock). While in breach of contract, sadly, the only damages the other party was entitled was the money they paid for the coin. Within the Fur Coat caselet, the ad did not specify that only women could receive the free fur coat, making the offer open to anyone who was in the first ten to purchase the coat. Denying the man of a discounted coat was in breach of contract and the man was entitled to a discounted fur coat as damages. Both cases have the elements which make it enforceable (offer, acceptance, consideration, as well as meeting of the minds). In each case, the ad served as a binding offer to which the seller was obliged to honor. In Gold Coin, the seller was in breach of contract because it offered an item for sale when people would be sold the item when they would be out of stuck by the item their orders were processed. In Fur Coat, the seller also made an …show more content…
A case which did not pair was the Elvis case, where his fiancé was promised to have the balance paid for her mortgage. This case or “contract” was not enforceable because the promise would have been a gift, therefore having no grounds to be followed through on. The reason why this is considered a “gift” and unenforceable is because there is no exchange of anything, only Elvis giving (or in this case would have given) the money to pay off his fiancé’s mortgages. What a business (or society in general) might take away from the outcome of this caselet is that there must be an exchange in contracts (offer and acceptance), otherwise it would be considered a gift and