Posted: August 5th, 2013
In business law, for a contract to be enforceable it has to be provable. This means that whether it is written or oral, a contract has to have some form of way to prove that it is existent (Jennings, 2006). For oral contracts, it may be difficult to prove existence of certain terms due to lack of evidence. However, written contracts are easier to prove as it is written on paper and signed by both parties involved, hence can be referred to when there is the occurrence of a breach of contract prompting litigation. In this instance, if a party forfeits his duty as expressed in the terms of the contract, it will be possible to prove the existence of those contractual conditions in the terms stated. The concept of proof of contract identifies the importance of the ability to prove the validity of the contract as this is what will render it enforceable in the court of law. This concept is dependent on the nature of the wording of the contract and the concepts of the contract in relation to the nature of the contract in question.
This contract is valid as it meets all the contractual terms of good faith, a meeting of minds, performance expectation on both parties, mutual consideration and there was an offer and acceptance where the buyer accepted these terms before entering into the contract. Therefore, the buyer was under obligation to act according to the set terms as he had accepted them before signing it. Seinfields could not claim of not paying the fee because Cohen had received an amount of fee from Mayeris as this was not an alternative stated in the contract and the action between Mayeris and Cohen do not affect the written contract as they are outside its scope. However, Cohen also breaches the contract in that there is no total performance on her part where her duties include and are not limited to showing the house to the clients when required. In this case, she was absent when the defendant required seeing the house showing partial performance on her part. With this evidence, the court should not order Seinfields to pay Cohen, as there was non-performance where she failed to perform her duty as the broker. There also is lack of substantial evidence of damages by the plaintiff due to the non-payment that occurred.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.