Without any other further information it could be assumed that Clara has the mental capacity necessary to enter into a binding contract. If this is an issue it could be a defense supporting her argument that the contract is invalid. Even if Clara does propose mental impairment, if Matt could show she was having a lucid interval when the contract was signed then he can likely enforce the contract. We would need further information to determine whether or not Matt has contractual capacity as well.
Assuming he is over 18 there is nothing else that would indicate that he doesn’t have contractual capacity. Sub-Conclusion- Without any evidence of mental impairment or minority both parties are competent. B) Sub-Issue- Whether the contract is legal. Rule- The purpose of the contract must be legal and cannot be against public logic. Sub-Analysis- There is nothing in the facts that would indicate this is illegal or against public policy. Sub-Conclusion- The contract is legal. C) Sub-Issue- Whether or not there was an agreement rule.
Rule- An agreement consists of offer and acceptance. Sub-Analysis-There was an offer to buy the motorcycle on Scalar’s part and Matt accepted the offer by attempting to deliver the motorcycle. Sub- Conclusion- There is an agreement. D) Sub-Issue- Whether there is consideration. Rule- In order to have consideration, something Of value must be exchanged. Sub-Analysis- Since Clara agreed to buy the motorcycle it can be assumed that she is going to give Matt cash in exchange for the Harley Davidson. Sub- Conclusion- There is consideration.
Analysis: In looking at the four regulations for valid contract the only one that rises concern is the issue as to whether or not Clara and Matt are competent parties. As discussed above, we don’t have enough facts to make that conclusion. Conclusion: As long as Clara is not mentally impaired and Matt is over 18 there is a valid contract and Matt will succeed in his action against Clara. 2) Issue: Whether Ruby breached the contract? Since Ruby refused to exchange the ring she breached the contract as long as the contract is valid.
Rule: In order for a contract to be enforceable four elements must be present: 1) Competent parties 2) Legality 3) Agreement 4) Consideration a) Sub-Issue- Whether the parties are competent? Rule- – In order to be competent, a party must have contractual capacity. A Of the K. Additionally, the party has to not be operating under a mental disability. Sub-Analysis- When an individual enters into a contract while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and lacks mental capacity to understand the gal consequences of the contract, they are not competent.
The contract is considered to be avoidable at the option of the intoxicated person. The intoxicated party may disarms a contract. Once the intoxicated parties are no longer impaired the contract must be disarmed within a reasonable amount of time or the contract is considered ratified. Here, Ruby was drinking at the time of the agreement. So she may lack the mental capacity to understand. Her disinformation was within a reasonable time since Ruby attempted to disarms the contract immediately after she was no longer intoxicated, the very next day.
Sub-conclusion- As discussed above the parties may not be competent. B) Sub-Issue- b-d- **as discussed above see sub issues in discussion 1. Analysis: The intoxication discussed in the sub; issue one gives Ruby a defense to the breach of the contract claim. Assuming Ruby can show that she was too intoxicated to understand the legal consequences of the contract, she will succeed since she disarmed the contract within a reasonable amount of time. Conclusion: Ruby did not breach the contract. DARPA will not be successful in her action against Ruby.
