The following report will reflect a Paralegal review of the potential legal action(s) between Sam Stevens and his landlord of his apartment (“Quinn”). In addition, Sam and the national chain store that sells which sells safety products (the “Chain Store”). Sam created a new invention in his apartment which is a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders (the “Machine”). Sam specifically advised Quinn that he was creating the Machine from his apartment and Quinn recognized this by wishing Sam good luck. At the same time, Sam had a verbal agreement to produce one thousand units.
The following four are required elements that would have to be exhibited to establish a “valid contract” between Sam and the Chain store. The first element is offer which would appear to be present since Sam offered to produce one thousand units for the Chain store. Unfortunately, this element can be called into question since the Chain store and Sam did not agree on a certain date to have the one thousand units to produce and delivered to the Chain store. The second element is acceptance which is questionable in this case. Since the facts of this case does not mention when the Chain store expects the units to be produced and delivered to them. The third element is the intention of legal consequence which is also questionable as well. Both parties apparently are capable of making legal decisions, but there is no evidence that both parties actually intended to enter into a legally binding contract.
Since there is no evidence that there is a written contract or verbal contract advising of what is expected from each parties from the deadline to have the units produces to what happens if the units are not produce. The final element that would have to be exhibited is consideration. Which requires that a promise must be exchange for an adequate consideration (Kubasek et al., 2017). The only evidence that offers “consideration” to be present is Sam’s promise to produce the one thousand units, but the Chain store did not provide any consideration to Sam such as a form of payment agreement. The second element of a valid contract appears to be insufficient. Due to all of this it can be concluded that there was no valid contract between Sam and the Chain store.
Even though there may not be a valid contract between Sam and the Chain Store, there are still quasi-contract and/or elements in which could be called a promissory estoppel. A quasi-contract is defined as a court-imposed contractual obligation to prevent unjust enrichment (Kubasek et al., 2017). Sam does not look like he is in failure to produce and/or deliver “immediately”. Which provides Sam with any unfair advantage. It does seem apparent (based on the facts provided) that the Chain store was not unjustly damaged by Sam’s failure to deliver immediately. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Chain store would prevail on a claim of quasi-contract against Sam.
Promissory estoppel is defined as the legal enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable contract due to a party’s detrimental reliance on the contract (Kubasek et al., 2017). Based on assumption that the Chain store was “unjustly damaged”, this concept of promissory estoppel would not likely apply here either.
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment is the right and obligations of both the tenant and landlord depended upon their contract. The standard residential lease agreement normally includes a “covenant of quiet enjoyment” which insures a landlord (Quinn) or tenant (Sam) against disturbance of their right to possess or use the property (Kubasek et al., 2017). There are some facts of the case that may support that Sam is in breach of the lease agreement since it is apparent that the “barking” noise made from the Machine was disturbing the other tenants, which Sam could be considered in bench of the covenant of quiet enjoyment as its relates to the other tenant’s rights. Which in this case Same could be given an eviction.
Unless otherwise specified, most standard residential lease agreement prohibit the operation of a commercial enterprise on the residential property (Kubasek et al., 2017). If this was violated the conducting a business provision, then Sam could be evicted on this basis. However, when Quinn approved of Sam conducting a business on the property when Quinn was notified by Sam that Sam was developing a new invention (which could be considered conducting business) and Quin acknowledged the conducting a business was approved by wishing Sam “good luck”.
On the grounds for eviction based on convent of quiet enjoyment, it would appear that Quin could serve Sam with an eviction. Nonetheless, this would depend on the level in which Sam disturbed the other tenants. If the barking noise from the machine was not reasonably noise and not excessively loud for the situation, then Sam might have a chance at a good defense. Sam may have a legal defense claim against Quinn’s eviction and sue for damages and/or sue for breach of contract. Since Quinn (the landlord) must prove that the barking noise from the Machine was unreasonably loud and did substantially interfere with the other tenants’ rights of quiet enjoyment.
Lastly regarding the conducting a business issue, Quinn acknowledged and voluntarily, waived his right to challenge Sam’s operation of business. Therefore Quinn cannot legally evict Sam unless he can prove otherwise.