Wimpy, Bluto, & Popeye Wimpy, Bluto, & Popeye a) The circumstances surrounding a contract determine whether one person is liable contractually to another or not. In this case, the contract will be considered enforceable or unenforceable based on the level of evidence that can be produced in a court of law. Looking at the contract between Wimpy and Bluto, it is clear that Wimpy is not contractually liable to Bluto since their contract does not meet all the requirements of an enforceable contract. In the first place, this was an oral agreement in which the two parties agreed on some terms.
Bluto’s acceptance of the offer to buy the boat at $500 was based on his mind after a week. Although wimpy offered not to sell the boat until after one week, there was no written document that could prove the validity of the contract in a court of law (Bar et al, 2009, p. 71). In contract law, an enforceable deal is said to be any valid agreement that carries the force of law behind it. In other words, this is a legal contract between one or more parties that binds them legislatively (Tulibacka, 2009, p.
204). Although Wimpy and Bluto had agreed orally, Wimpy offering to sell the boat at $500 to Bluto in which case Bluto agreed to buy the boat but requested a week to consider. Wimpy still agreed not to sell the boat only after a week. In this case, the contract passes through a number of contract law facts. There is no common mistake of fact between the parties. In addition, the contract was not as a result of coercion and undue influence.
These two facts would make the contract enforceable and hence Wimpy contractually subject to Bluto. On the contrary, there is a possibility of fraud in the contract between the two parties. In this case, Wimpy could argue as having misinterpreted the contract and thus ended up selling the boat the next day to Popeye at a higher price. This is reinforced with the absence of a written contract to bind Wimpy and Bluto on the obligations of the contract. In most cases, such an agreement is only enforceable based on the accuracy of records which can be produced in a court of justice in case one of the parties fails to fulfill the requirement (Tulibacka, 2009, p.
211). In this case, Wimpy selling the boat earlier than a week agreed upon with Bluto. b) In the case of Wimpy and Bluto having a written document on their agreement, it would be different. Wimpy would be contractually liable to Bluto and his selling of the boat earlier than a week would be taken as a breach of contract.
The contract would automatically become enforceable in a court of law (Bar et al, 2009, p. 93). The contract would fulfill all the stages involved in an enforceable contract. The stages in the contract would be as follows: There would have been meeting of minds in which case Wimpy and Bluto had a mutual understanding. Wimpy was to sell the boat to Bluto at $500 after a week. However, Bluto would not be wholly bound to this contract. This is because, after one week he would be entitled to either buy the boat at $500 from Wimpy or change his mind.
There would obviously be an offer and acceptance, which would be supported by a written document. As such, Bluto would be entitled to seek intervention from a court of justice after Wimpy sold the Boat at $600 earlier than a week. This would work out only if Bluto is buying the boat at $500. References: Bar, C. et al. (2009). Non-contractual Liability Arising Out of Damage Caused to Another: PEL. London: Sellier European law publ. Tulibacka, M. (2009). Product Liability Law in Transition: A Central European Perspective.
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.