Shrek Contract Law

Improved Essays
Identify the main contract in the movie. The main contract in this movie is called Ogre for a day. The main purpose is to allow Shrek to feel like a real ogre, and to be feared by villagers again for one day. He must exchange one unspecified day of his life to Rumpelstiltskin in return.

Identify the six elements of a contract as outlined in class (in your own words!) /6
Offer - a proposal made from one party to another
Acceptance- acceptance of an offer to make a legally binding agreement
Consideration- something valuable that is either a good service or money that exchanged for something else valuable that is either a good service or money in a contract.
Legal purpose- when the agreement in a contract is legal and complies with the law. The contact is not legally binding if the purpose
…show more content…
Is each element present in Shrek's contract? If no, tell me why. If yes, tell me why. Offer and Acceptance- I believe that offer was not present in the contract proposed by Rumpelstiltskin because Shrek did not fully understand the terms and conditions of the contract since they were misrepresented, therefore the offers conditions were unclear.

Consideration - I believe that consideration is not present because although both parties benefit by getting something of value (Shrek- to be a real ogre again for a day, Rumple- a day of Shrek's life from when he was a baby), a day from the past is not tangible, because it is not a good, service, or money.

Legal purpose- I do not believe that this contract was legal, because rumple intended to kill Shrek with this contract, and place him in an alternate reality where he was never born.

Genuine consent- I do not believe that consent is present in the contract because Rumpelstiltskin misrepresented information. There was fine print that is deceptive, therefore there can not be genuine

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    disagrees with. I, Rebecca Friedrichs, and ten other believe that the California Teachers Association has violated Friedrichs and the other teacher’s first amendment right because having an agency shop limits freedom of speech and should not be upheld in law. In representing my client (Friedrichs and the other teachers in the California system), collectively we have many goals we aim to accomplish during this court hearing. First, we hope that the…

    • 1404 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays