The decision to continue to conduct business with Marshall Peterson depends on a variety of factors, such as what legal course of action he may take, what damages or remedies he may seek, what defense my families company has, and ultimately will my family and I be able to resolve the dispute with Marshall through our faith. Marshall seemed to be very angry over the phone, stating his expectations and reasons as to why we must continue our business relationship. The overall goal in this scenario is to resolve this dispute without either party taking any legal action, and I believe this to be possible through my faith and Marshall’s exploration of his faith.
First, if my family and I elect to discontinue business with Marshall, he would likely …show more content…
I did not sign a contract with Marshall, nor did I authorize my son to enter into an agreement with him. An early 1900’s court case, Alexander v. Bosworth, concluded, "Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized" (1915). My family can pursue some possible legal defenses in the event that Marshall seeks to take legal action using this contract as his defense. Our defense would be that Marshall entered into a contract with my son, without my knowledge, and that the contract is voidable due to his lack of legal capacity to enter into the contract. According to Kubasek, et al, he writes, “one of the oldest limitations on capacity is the ability of minors to enter into only voidable contracts” (2010). Additionally, in the state of Alabama, “full capacity to contract does not arise until the person reaches the age of 19, which is the age of majority in most states” (Kusabek, 2010). There is a valid argument that my underage son did not have legal capacity to enter into a contract with Marshall, and that the contract he signed is voidable. My son has the right to void this contract and would need to disaffirm it through either words or actions to Marshall. Because Marshall became so angry and mentioned the contact between him and my son over the phone, this may be his only valid defense. The last option would be to attempt to …show more content…
Of extreme importance is that we know through His teachings that we will not enter into contracts with non-believers. In the Book 2 Corinthians, Verse 6:14, it states “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2015). If Marshall does not become a believer, I will need to discontinue my business relationship because we are forbidden to “yoke” ourselves by a contract with non-believers. His wife Gloria is a believer, but I am unsure as to where Marshall is regarding his exploration of
First, if my family and I elect to discontinue business with Marshall, he would likely …show more content…
I did not sign a contract with Marshall, nor did I authorize my son to enter into an agreement with him. An early 1900’s court case, Alexander v. Bosworth, concluded, "Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized" (1915). My family can pursue some possible legal defenses in the event that Marshall seeks to take legal action using this contract as his defense. Our defense would be that Marshall entered into a contract with my son, without my knowledge, and that the contract is voidable due to his lack of legal capacity to enter into the contract. According to Kubasek, et al, he writes, “one of the oldest limitations on capacity is the ability of minors to enter into only voidable contracts” (2010). Additionally, in the state of Alabama, “full capacity to contract does not arise until the person reaches the age of 19, which is the age of majority in most states” (Kusabek, 2010). There is a valid argument that my underage son did not have legal capacity to enter into a contract with Marshall, and that the contract he signed is voidable. My son has the right to void this contract and would need to disaffirm it through either words or actions to Marshall. Because Marshall became so angry and mentioned the contact between him and my son over the phone, this may be his only valid defense. The last option would be to attempt to …show more content…
Of extreme importance is that we know through His teachings that we will not enter into contracts with non-believers. In the Book 2 Corinthians, Verse 6:14, it states “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2015). If Marshall does not become a believer, I will need to discontinue my business relationship because we are forbidden to “yoke” ourselves by a contract with non-believers. His wife Gloria is a believer, but I am unsure as to where Marshall is regarding his exploration of