Need help rewording these sections. TIA

          Case Study II

A. Valid contract

Various elements must be present to prove that a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. The four elements to a contract are agreement, consideration, legal object, and parties with contractual capacity. The first element of a contract is agreement. The agreement involves an offeror making an offer to the offeree and the offeree accepting the offer (Kubasek et al. (2012). In this case, the manager from a national chain store offered Sam to carry his product exclusively, Sam accepted the offer and verbally agreed to deliver 1,000 units to the store. Sam and the store enter into an agreement; therefore, the first element of a contract exists.  

The second element of a contract is consideration. Consideration is a requirement in every contract for it to be enforceable by court (Kubasek et al. (2012). It is what an offeree will receive in an exchange for the offer accepted. Because Sam and the manager of the store did not discuss the compensation Sam would receive in return, there is a lack of consideration. The third element of a contract is contractual capacity which is a legally binding contact that is entered between two parties who are of the age of majority; do not suffer from mental illness or disorders, and have been adjudicated a habitual drunkard (Kubasek et al. (2012). The case does not mention any incapacity for either party; therefore, both Sam and the manager of the store understand their legal obligations and are able to enter a legally binding contract. However, since there is was no consideration made by the offeror, both parties are unable to enter a legally binding contract. In order for a contact to be legally binding it must contain two elements, both parties must be in agreement and there must be a consideration presented by both parties. The fourth element of a contract is legal object and it is not considered in this case due to the lack of consideration.  

If the elements of a contract did exist between these parties, there could still be some possible reasons why a contract might not be valid based on facts not present in the scenario. For example, if Sam was a minor at the time he made the agreement with the chain store, the contract would not be valid because of incapacity. Mental disability is another fact of why a contact would not be valid at the time of an agreement. If the manager of the store suffered from mental disorders to the higher nature and extent, it would prevent the manager from entering a contract as he/she would not understand the legal obligations of a contract and the contract would be voided. The third fact of why a contract may not be valid is intoxication. Suppose both Sam and the manager went out for drinks to discusas the agreement, it is possible that one of the parties has low alcohol tolerance and becomes so intoxicated that it impaired their ability to understand their legal obligations and the contract would be voided.  

C. Rights and obligations

The rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant depend upon the term of their contract. Such a contract may be verbal or in writing under a standard residential lease agreement. A lease between a landlord and a tenant is when a landlord promises a possession to a tenant in exchange for a fee for a certain period for time. This is typically referred to a definite-term lease (Kubasek et al. (2012). The tenants also have a duty to prevent waste and refrain from destroying the property or make any changes without the landlord's permission, refrain from using the premises for illegal purposes, honesty about the intent use of the premises, paying rent on time, avoid nuisance, and frustration of purpose (Duties of the Tenant, (n.d)). When it comes to substantial interference, this depends on the case and the amount of the interference of quiet enjoyment.  

There are two facts that may support that Sam is in breach of that contract, he was conducting business from his apartment and a covenant of quiet enjoyment. The letter Sam received stated that he is not allowed to conduct business from his apartment and that the tenants were complain of a barking noise. The fact that may support that Sam is not in breach of that contract is when Sam told his landlord that he is working on an invention and the landlord wished him luck. Although, it was unclear whether the landlord understood that the device being invented was in the apartment, Sam was honest with an intent use of the apartment. Sam was under the assumption that working out of his apartment was verbally permitted when the landlord said good luck. It seems that there was no further communication pertaining to working from an apartment or any other breach of an agreement.  

D. Grounds to evict

Based upon those rights and obligations, Sam's landlord does not have grounds to evict because Sam had not previously received any violation notices of the rental agreement. Sam did not receive cure or quit notice asking him to refrain from making excessive noise nor did he receive an unconditional quit notice stating that he is repeatedly violating the rental agreement (Steward, 2017). In Sam's defense, there were no previous verbal or written communications from the landlord in regard to this issue. Sam was not aware that in fact there was in issue and was not given a fair chance to correct the violation. Sam should have received a 10-day notice to comply or vacate listing the sections of the agreement Sam violated allowing for Sam to decide whether he is able to comply with the agreement or vacate the premises (Eviction Process (n.d.). If Sam decided to ignore the landlords notices this mean he is not in compliance, the landlord may than begin the eviction process.

E. Defenses

There are three types of evictions, full eviction, partial eviction, and constructive eviction. A full eviction is when the landlord restricts full access to the premises. Partial eviction is when a tenant is able to access only part of the rental. Constructive eviction is when a tenant can no longer remain on property due to habitable condition. I do not believe that any of the three types of evictions are appropriate for this case. Sam in not complaining of the living conditions and he cannot be fully or partially restricted from the premises as he did not receive a termination notice prior to the eviction notice.