O’Neal was employed by the Colton School as a teacher, which was valid though a contractual agreement between these two parties. When O’Neal attempted to replace the original contract with a substitute agreement, he did not follow the correct rules of modification. When the Colton School fired O’Neal for nonperformance, they were acting within the limitations of the law. O’Neal’s later legal action against the Colton school will argue that his condition excused his nonperformance. This, however, is a baseless argument.
O’Neal has the protected right to enter into as good of a deal or as bad of a deal he so desires. After he chooses to enter into that set deal, a valid and concrete contract is made. This contractual agreement is enforceable …show more content…
In order for a modification to be valid, it has to contain mutual consideration, which is where both parties give something up that they have a legal right to. The Colton School was giving up an additional number of paid sick leave days, while O’Neal was giving up nothing. Thus, his attempted modification, even if accepted, would not be legally enforceable.
The Colton School had a right to deny O’Neal’s modification. They also had the right to fire him because of his breach, or nonperformance, of the employment contract.
A party is said to have breached a contract when the party “owes a duty to perform and fails to fulfill [their] obligation” (Law and Commerce, 213). In this case, it is a material, or total, breach because the failure to perform “relates to a fundamental term of the contract or has an effect on the value of the contract” (Law and Commerce, 213). The fundamental term of the contract was for O’Neal to teach a set amount of courses and be compensated through a salary. His breach affected the value of the contract because the contract’s value derives from O’Neal’s time spent teaching a class. By disrupting his teaching and withholding his valuable time, he performed a material breach on his contractual agreement …show more content…
O’Neal’s legal action against the Colton School, suing on the grounds that he is discharged from his duties because his performance became impracticable, is objectively implausible. His condition was not sudden. He could have chosen not to agree to another term of his employment contract if he found his vision too burdensome. Although O’Neal’s legal action will be unsuccessful, if the Colton School were to counter sue for a material breach, seeking damages for the expenses incurred from his breach mid academic year or contractual term, O’Neal would find himself liable for those
O’Neal has the protected right to enter into as good of a deal or as bad of a deal he so desires. After he chooses to enter into that set deal, a valid and concrete contract is made. This contractual agreement is enforceable …show more content…
In order for a modification to be valid, it has to contain mutual consideration, which is where both parties give something up that they have a legal right to. The Colton School was giving up an additional number of paid sick leave days, while O’Neal was giving up nothing. Thus, his attempted modification, even if accepted, would not be legally enforceable.
The Colton School had a right to deny O’Neal’s modification. They also had the right to fire him because of his breach, or nonperformance, of the employment contract.
A party is said to have breached a contract when the party “owes a duty to perform and fails to fulfill [their] obligation” (Law and Commerce, 213). In this case, it is a material, or total, breach because the failure to perform “relates to a fundamental term of the contract or has an effect on the value of the contract” (Law and Commerce, 213). The fundamental term of the contract was for O’Neal to teach a set amount of courses and be compensated through a salary. His breach affected the value of the contract because the contract’s value derives from O’Neal’s time spent teaching a class. By disrupting his teaching and withholding his valuable time, he performed a material breach on his contractual agreement …show more content…
O’Neal’s legal action against the Colton School, suing on the grounds that he is discharged from his duties because his performance became impracticable, is objectively implausible. His condition was not sudden. He could have chosen not to agree to another term of his employment contract if he found his vision too burdensome. Although O’Neal’s legal action will be unsuccessful, if the Colton School were to counter sue for a material breach, seeking damages for the expenses incurred from his breach mid academic year or contractual term, O’Neal would find himself liable for those