Home / papers / Contract Analysis: Doing business with Marshall, Legal Implications and Biblical Perspective

Contract Analysis: Doing business with Marshall, Legal Implications and Biblical Perspective

Doing business with Marshall

In this scenario, doing business with Marshall presents legal and religious challenges. My decision to supply Marshall with our products is based on good faith. I deliver everything in full as expected. I also deliver these products promptly and in good time. There are several instances where Marshall fails to pay invoices in time yet I still chose not to levy interested or penalties for such late payments. Therefore, it illustrates that everything was being done in good faith. According to my faith, I will call Marshall and explain to him why I’m considering exploring other options. I will let him know how it intends to benefit me and how I intend to bridge the gap that I have left with my supplies. By explaining to him, he may welcome my idea and consider releasing me to supply my products to others. If he accepts, I will appreciate and begin supplying my products to the new clients. If he refuses, I will have no option but to continue supplying him with such goods so that I do not break his faith. In this way, he will continue to trust me and my religion. In this regard, he will continue to come to church.

Legal Implications

If I stopped doing business with Marshall, he may bring legal action for failing to deliver as per the contract agreement. Marshall may seek compensatory damages for the loss that may incur for losing their supplies. The amount that may be awarded by the courts is to make good or replace the potential loss that may be incurred by Marshall after losing their supplies. The courts may also recommend specific performance in relation to the contract. Since the contract was already signed by my son, it may be easy for Marshal to sue for decree of specific performance. Through this, the courts may compel the other party to perform its part of the contract. For example, the courts may recommend that I continue supplying Marshall with the produces until some reasonable time elapses.

Despite the causes of actions Marshall might bring, there are some legal defenses that my company might have. First, I will claim that the contact was entered with the wrong person. My son was just a part time deliveryman with my company and had no capacity to sign such important agreements on behalf of the company. Marshall ought to have engaged me since I’m the owner of the company. Therefore, I will argue that the contract was signed by the wrong person (Staudenmayer, 2004). Secondly, I will argue that the contract was signed by a minor who was not in the position to enter into a contract. The contract law stipulates that minors under the age of 18 years of age have no capacity to enter intro contract (Eberl-Borges & Yingxia, 2014). Currently, my son is over 18 years old, but he signed the contract when he was still 17 years old. In most cases, the infant is bound by the contract that is intended to promote his educational purposes. However, there is no direct link that this nature of business was promoting the education of the said infant. On the same note, the infant is bound by the contract intended for the supply of necessities. The law also stipulate that the infant can be bound by the contract by benefits his as a person. However, this was high fathers’ property and there is no direct benefit for the son in this business.

When the son was signing the contract, he was just acting on the capacity of a normal company employee. Only the recognized corporate offices such as the company secretaries and the directors have the legal mandate to sign contracts on behalf of the company. However, the employee can sign the contract on behalf of the company through express authority by the directors. However, there is no evidence that the son was sent by the father to sign the contract papers on behalf of the company. For the employee to sign a contract a contractual agreement on behalf of the company, such an employee should have the express authority to grant for the employee (Karsten & Sinai, 2003). Also, an employee needs to have an implied authority to undertake the important duty of entering into contractual agreement by the company clients. It is even better for there to be witnesses during the signing of contract. Therefore, there is no express authority from the company for the sign to enter into contractual agreements by their clients. Marshall ought to have questioned the authority of the son before luring him to signing the contract. By questioning the authority of the son, he should have realized that the son has no powers to sign important agreements on behalf of the contract.  Therefore, the contract signed by the son and the client does not meet the legal threshold to be treated as a viable contract (Staudenmayer, 2004).

Biblical Perspective

Stopping to do business with Marshall will come with some consequences. First, Marshall will be totally heartbroken concerning my actions. Christianity teaches that people should behave in a responsible manner towards other people. Therefore, Marshall will not expect that a Christian of my caliber would leave him for other brighter business prospects. Therefore, he may be heartbroken to the extent he may never come to church again. He may also waiver in his faith due to the negative experience with Christians. Therefore, I will explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to help settle the matter in a Christian way.

The Christian way of dispute resolution does not require me to go to the courts. In the book of Mathew 18, the bible says that dispute should be solved by talking and listening to each other. This can be done by calling for two or three witnesses. This can also be done by a series of prayers to help God reveal the best course of action that would help in dispute resolution

References

 Eberl-Borges, C., & Yingxia, S. (2014). FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IN MODERN CHINESE LEGAL PRACTICE. The George Washington International Law Review, 46(2), 341-371. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1618113499?accountid=45049

Kar, R. (2016). Contract as empowerment. The University of Chicago Law Review, 83(2), 759-834. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1808335114?accountid=45049

Karsten, J., & Sinai, A. R. (2003). The action plan on european contract law: Perspectives for the future of european contract law and EC consumer law. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(2), 159-195. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023648221066

Staudenmayer, D. (2004). The place of consumer contract law within the process on european contract law. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(3), 269-287. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/198348586?accountid=45049

 

RELATED: Contract Law

Top