LST2BSL: Introduction to Business Law And Ethics - Jen Is Organising A Surprise Party - Assessment Answer

Introduction to Business Law And Ethics Assignment

Assignment Task

Jen is organising a surprise party for her grandparents’ 50th wedding anniversary. She looks online and finds ‘Tiny Tim’, a professional DJ who is just 17 years old. She emails Tim and asks him what he charges for his DJ services. Tim emails back the next day, providing a brochure listing different kinds of services he provides, at different rates. Jen then replies, saying:

‘I am interested in booking a DJ for my grandparents’ anniversary celebrations on 2rd April. Would you be available on that date? It looks like your ‘weekend special’ package would be most appropriate, because I expect the party to last about 4 hours. But what if we go beyond that time limit? And do you have a good collection of Cuban music? That is their favourite style of music.’

Tim emails back: ‘Yes, I have plenty of Cuban music, and I’m available on 2nd April. If you want me to stay longer than 4 hours, then I charge $30 per extra hour.’

Jen does not reply to Tim, because she hears from a friend who is willing to provide DJ services for free. Jen wants to know whether she can change her mind about hiring Tim.

Jen also wants to arrange a cake for the party. On Sunday she goes into Delish Cakes, a local cake store, and speaks to the owner, Simon. Jen explains that the party is for her grandparents, and will have a Cuban theme. Simon suggests a particular style of cake, and Jen agrees that it would be perfect for the party. Simon says that he can specially make some Cuban-style fondant cake decorations. Jen is about to catch a train, so she doesn’t have time to finish filling out the order form. She gives Simon her details and takes the order form with her, saying that she will return it to Simon in the next couple of days.

On Tuesday, Simon calls Jen. She doesn’t answer, so he leaves a message, asking for the order form to be submitted. He also says that he will begin making the Cuban cake decorations. Jen listens to the message but doesn’t call Simon back. Over the next couple of days she is too busy to complete the form and give it to Simon. By the end of the week, Jen is starting to worry that Simon’s cake will be too expensive. On Friday she decides that she will simply make a cake herself. She calls Simon and tells him this. Simon is furious – not only has he spent hours making the Cuban decorations, but because they are unusual he will not be able to use them for any other customers’ orders.

Finally, Jen wants help in setting up the venue for the party. She sends a text message to her cousin: ‘Hey Adam! I need you to spend a few hours helping me put up balloons and streamers for the party on Saturday.’

Adam replies ‘Ok, I’ll help you – but what’s in it for me? What will you give me in return?’

Jen texts him again: ‘Remember how I helped you with your college assignment last month? That’s the payment. It’s time to return the favour.’

Adam is not convinced. Jen texts her other cousins, in case Adam doesn’t turn up:

‘Calling all cousins! If you come and help me prepare for the party on Saturday, I’ll pay you $20.’

Jen’s uncle Bill sees the text message on his daughter’s phone. He decides to help Jen set up for the party on Saturday, so he can get $20.

Is there an enforceable contract between Tim and Jen?

2. Is promissory estoppel relevant to Jen’s dispute with Simon from Delish Cakes?

3. Is there an enforceable contract between Jen and Adam?

4. Is Bill entitled to the $20 if he helps Jen set up for the party?

Introduction

Is there an enforceable contract between Tim and Jen?

A written contract between any two parties is enforceable when the contract is written in its form. When a document is written in its form, it can be presented before a court of law and used to argue a case. In the case of Jen and Tim, there is no enforceable contract between them. Concerning the email conversations between them, Jen did not confirm to have booked the Dj services belonging to Tim. For this reason, a court of law cannot enforce the email conversations between them. What happened is that Jen only asked for more details from Tim asking him on how he charges and other requirements that would need to have. Tim promptly responded to the email and stated his prices and all requirements. However, Jen did not reply to the email. This means that she did not confirm booking Tim’s services. Therefore, Tim did not incur any losses resulting from Jen’s actions. On the other hand, if Jen confirmed by making reservations for the Dj services offered by Tim, the contract should have been admissible in a court of law. Jen decided to go for her friend who offered to provide Dj services at the party free. In a court of law, Tim would have no evidence that he was booked by Jen to provide his service at Jen’s party. Therefore, Tim was free to go about his different activities and participate in other events during the same time that Jen had planned to have the party. On the other, Jen did not expect Tim to show up for her party. Tim was in a position to continue with his normal planned events and obligations. By the fact that he was not affected in any way, he was not entitled to any form of reward from Jen. Failing to book a reservation is not outlawed. Also, changing one’s mind is normal in all ways. In this case, Jen changed her mind before making the confirmation.

Is promissory estoppel relevant to Jen’s dispute with Simon from Delish Cakes?

A promissory estoppel refers to a principle whereby a promise can be enforced by law. When a person makes a promise to fulfil a certain action, it is their duty to ensure that the objective is accomplished at all costs. Making a promise to another person can be enforced by a court of law. Therefore, people should only be making promises in instances where they are sure that they deliver on the said promise. In the case of Jen and Simon of Delish Cakes, promissory estoppel is relevant. Jen made a promise to Simon that she would require his services in preparing the cake for her party. At the last minute, Jen cancelled her request to Simon because she felt that his prices were too high. This doctrine was designed to prevent such instances from people who think they make and break promises whenever they want. Also, it protects the victims in the event they incur losses or any form of damage. In this case, Simon had already begun preparing the decorations for the cake, which were unique in nature. Simon went ahead to call Jen asking her to return the order form and that he would start preparing the cake decorations. When Jen visited the cake shop, she promised to buy the cake from Simon. Also, she carried the order form to fill it at a later time because she was running out of time. For this reason, Simon had reason to believe that Jen would buy the cake for her party for him. The promise made by Jen can be enforced in a court of law. This law would help Simon recover from the losses he incurred as a result of the actions undertaken by Jen towards him. He was put under the impression that Jen would buy the cake from him. Therefore, he was obligated to begin making the cake because of his part, he had promised to deliver the cake on the day of the party.

Is there an enforceable contract between Jen and Adam?

A court of law only recognizes contracts that are I their written form. This shows that the agreements are genuine and that the parties involved were on the consent of the agreement. A written contract can take various forms. It can even be in electronic nature. This means the use of text messages and emails. Jen sent a text message to Adam asking him to come and help her with the party decorations. Adam responded to the text message and agreed that he would help her with the decorations. The text message can be used as evidence that Adam agreed to help. If he were to fail to appear, Jen would be in a position to present a case to a court of law stating that Adam broke a promise that he made to her. After the response, Adam went ahead to ask what he would be getting in return from Jen because of the help that he would be giving her. For this reason, the contract between Jen and Adam was enforceable in a court of law. Through his text reply, Adam had committed himself to helping Jen with the party decorations. Therefore, failing to appear would result in a breach of contract because Jen was counting on him for the help. In this case, Jen would have incurred some emotional stress, and the decorations would have gone up in time. This would have happened if Adam broke his promise. Making a promise to Jen would have protected by law under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Jen would have been compensated for any expenses she would have incurred during the whole exercise. Because Adam responded to the text message and confirmed his attendance, Jen would have acted normally by making all the necessary arrangements having in mind that Adam would be available to help her with the decorations. In response to the confirmation text message sent by Adam, Jen reminded him of the favour she did for him a while back to his studies. Jen referred to this as a form of payment for the services he would be providing by helping with the decorations.

Is Bill entitled to the $20 if he helps Jen set up for the party?

Jen is entitled to pay Bill $20 for helping her with the decorations on the day of the party. Jen had sent a text message to all her cousins asking them to come and help her with the decorations. In return, she would pay them the sum of $20 each. However, Bill saw the text message on his daughter’s phone and decided to appear and help with the desire of receiving the $20 that Jen offered to pay the cousins. When Jen was sending the text message, she did not specify who was eligible to participate and who was not eligible. Therefore, Bill was in the right sense of mind to attend and help Jen with the decorations. As a result, he was entitled to the $20 that she had offered to pay her cousins if they appeared to help her with the decorations. Despite the fact that Bill was not personally invited to help Jen, he is entitled to the payment. Under the law, Jen made a commitment to pay anyone who would come out to help her. Bill might have read a message that did not belong to him, and appeared. Furthermore, Bill is not asking for an amount of payment that is above the amount promised by Jen. Therefore, his request fits well within the parameters of the contract. His appearance did not harm Jen in any way because she had budgeted to spend that same amount of money on the people who would help her. The promise made by Jen would have been protected under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Jen made a promise to pay them, and she should honour her promises. If Bill had done a portion of the expected work alone, then Jen would not have been obligated to pay him the stipulated amount. The payment was done at work that had been done in full. Therefore, Bill had a basis to demand payment from Jen if it was withheld for any reason.