BUSINESS LAW

Business Law

[Name of the Institute]

Business Law

Question # 1: Margaret v. Emily

The presented case indicates that Margaret opened an antique store in 1989 which specialized in unique porcelain dolls. Her business expanded through online advertising that she started in 1999. However, in 2006 the business expanded so much that she required assistance in her store. In July 2006 during a family discussion she indicated that she will continue her business for two more years and then retire. Emily, her youngest daughter was convinced to work in the store as long as she wanted and in return she would receive any unsold dolls. However, at the end of 2009 when Margaret retired she decided to give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the proceeds. There are many things to be considered in the presented scenario. First, at the time when Margaret promised to give her daughter Emily unsold porcelain dolls in return of her services at the store, Emily was only 16 and has not reached the legal age of maturity according to Australian Law. However, when Margaret retired in 2006, Emily was supposedly 18 and has reached the age of maturity and therefore entitled to take legal actions (Beatson, 2002, Pp. 45-76). Secondly, the conversation and commitment between Margaret and Emily was a verbal promise and not a valid written contract.

A contract normally takes place when two parties agree to certain terms, in exchange of some considerations. In this case, firstly, a verbal promise exists that does not give any indication of a contract. Oral contracts are enforceable but cannot be proven in court, in case of their breach. In this case, there is an ethical obligation existing because of the breach of promise. Failure to perform the obligation created by an enforceable promise is a breach of contract, and breach entitles the promisee (Emily in our case) to a remedy from the promisor (Margaret in our case). Margaret promises to give her daughter Emily unsold porcelain dolls in return of her services at the store after her retirement. Margaret subsequently decided to give unsold stock to charity for an auction. However, since the promise was not written (verbal contract), it puts Emily in no position to make a claim for damages.

Emily cannot seek legal compensations for Margaret's inability of giving her the promised unsold stock. This is because it was an oral promise which was not regarded. A breach of promise results when one of the party who agreed to fulfil the promise, does not show the willingness to fulfil the promise anymore. In case of a verbal promise, the promisee is in no command or authority to make a claim for damages or compensations. However, on an ethical front, Margaret should compensate or repay Emily as she agreed to do so. It cannot be said that Emily should seek the court's actions against the verbal promise of Margaret. In this case, she cannot knock the court's door because the case does not ...