Validity of a Contract, the Offerer and the Accepting Party.
Contracts are agreements between two or more parties, to do something to the other or not. Contracts are mostly based on sale of goods and provision of services. Contracts can be between an organisation and an individual as well. According to contract law, contracts can be in two forms which are, the written form or the oral form. Oral contracts are those contracts formed when agreements are spoken while written are those agreements that parties come to and sign a form to verify that there was a contract between the two or more parties. Contract law has various specifications for a contract to be considered valid. According to contract law, there are elements that classify a contract as valid or not. A contract is enforceable if there is a mutual agreement between the parties involved in the contract, so that there is an offerer and an offeree, if there is sufficient consideration from both parties, that is, if both parties consider the terms and conditions of the contract to be acceptable and not one party favored, if it is legally accepted based on the type of the contract and the various requirements for each type of contract, if the formalities of a contract are followed and if a party is qualified as having the capacity to form a contract (Slawson, 1996). In this case, there is a contract between the dot TV and Lim. The offerer is dotTV and the offeree is Lim. The two parties have an agreement where dotTV offers a domain name for $ 1,010.00 and Lim accepts the offer and the conditions to pay the required amount. This type of agreement is regarded a contract on the acceptance by the other party in need of the offer. Lim accepted the offer, agreed with the terms and gave the money to get the domain name in return. In this situation, there is legal proof that there is a contract between Lim and dotTV since dotTV advertised the offer and Lim responded by performing the basic requirements as indicated by the offering party. Both parties have equal considerations to the contract. DotTv has the capacity to form contracts as well as Lim. Contract law has various types of contracts, and agreements are considered contracts under specified conditions and formalities. Lim and dotTV have a contract between them considered valid since Lim has accepted and transferred the money to dotTV which qualifies the agreement as stated earlier as a unilateral contract. DotTV has no choice but to accept the agreement.
Type of Contract
In Unilateral contracts, only the offerer makes the promise and the party to accept this offer is just to fulfill the offerer’s requirements, and a contract is formed. It is usually done through advertising the offer to the public so that just an interested party forms a contract with the advertiser (Emerson, R. W. and Emerson R. W. J. D., 2003). DotTV advertised the need for a buyer to the domain name, and Lim responded by accepting the offer. This kind of contract does not require any signed document to show that there was a contract between Lim and dotTV, already the form of the agreement and formalities according to contract law show that it is a contract. Lim did not refuse the offer or change the price given by dotTV, so there cannot be any counter offer in this case. Counter offers occur when an accepting party proposes another price, other than the one offered therefore refusing the offer.
Contract Acceptance Revocation
An offerer can only revoke a contract before it is accepted by any party and has to inform the offeree of the revocation. If the advertisement was done to the whole world, then the revocation has also to be advertised to the whole world. An offer that leads to a unilateral contract can be revoked at any time except when an ancillary contract is formed, which guarantees that the contract will not be withdrawn (Emerson, R. W. and Emerson R. W. J. D., 2003). DotTv had the rights to revoke the contract and are justified to do so. The type of offer that dotTV presented in the market led to a unilateral type of contract between the international corporation and Lim. Unilateral contracts have specific exceptions not to be revoked, otherwise can be revoked at any time.
Statute of frauds are laws that render valid contracts unenforceable due to certain factors. The American statute states that contracts worth more that $500 should have written documents to avoid cases of claims of contracts, where there are no contracts. This can be applied in this case since the value of the domain name is $ 1010 to make the contract an enforceable one (Feinman, 2000).
Legal remedies to mistakes depend on the findings by the court if an accused party is found guilty. In unilateral mistakes, only one party accuses the other of breach of contract, and the other party, in this case the international cooperation dotTV, has to be shown to have done the mistake knowingly. DotTv offers the sale and changes the characters in the domain name form ‘golf.tv’ to ‘- -golf.tv’ then revokes the contract with Lim and further sells it for one million dollars, Lim can sue the corporation for breach of contract if he can prove that the cooperation did this changing of name characters intentionally.
Remedies on specific performance can be done by the court in certain cases especially when it is unjust to permit the accused party of breaching to pay the offended party. In Lim’s and dotTV’s case, the court can order the dotTV corporation to obey the contract and give Lim the domain name. The court can give an order of ‘Injunction’ to make dotTV refrain from revoking the contract.
The court can as well charge the dotTV Corporation with breach of contract if enough proof shows that the corporation did not obey the contract, and give Lim compensatory damages if in any case this breach of contract caused Lim some damages. The court can also give punitive and exemplary damages to discourage other parties from disobeying contracts. Courts can consider a contract unenforceable if there is an agreement between the parties to terminate the contract, and on certain forced conditions where the contract is not possible for example illegal contracts, cases of duress and when according to law there is no contract between the parties. Lim’s and dotTV’s case has no conditions not to be termed as a contract under these circumstances (Mann Roberts and Smith, 2005).
Emerson, R. W. and Emerson R. W. J. D., (2003). The Law of Business. America: Barron’s Educ. Sr.
Feinman, J. M., (2000). The Legal System in America. United States: Oxford Univ. Pr.
Mann, A. R., Roberts, B. S. and Smith, L. Y. (2005). Roberson and Smith’s Law of Business. North America: Thomson West.
Slawson, D. W., (1996). The Contact Law and Business. United States: Princeton Univ. Pr. contract.