Contract Formation and the Requirements of Enforceable Agreement
A contract is valid whether it is verbal or written, but it must have three elements: an agreement, an intention to form a legal relationship, and consideration or payment for goods and services. If a person makes an offer and another accepts the offer in exchange for goods and services, a contract is formed. Contracts are legally binding even if they are not written.
There can be legal action if a contract is breached, such as in the case of Toby, who has established formal and valid agreements with the editor of the Daily Scam and with Nicky to fix Nicky’s computer. (Legal Information Institute, n.d.) When Nicky and the editor of the Daily Scam do not pay Toby the agreed amounts of £300 plus a signed photograph and £200, respectively, for fixing the computer, he can sue both legally for breaching the contracts. As Toby fixed Nicky’s computer within four days, he must get the £200 from the Daily Scam for his services. Similarly, Toby was understanding toward Nicky and her situation and helped her fix her computer, so he must be given £300 and the signed photograph.
Although he deserves payment and provided the required services within the deadline, he needs to prove that there was a contract and that it was breached. In Toby’s case, he might not have a written contract but has to establish that a verbal contract existed and prove its terms. He will need to prove that such a contract existed and that it was breached by the other party in order to be reimbursed. Therefore, it is necessary to establish that there was a breach. In this case, the editor of the Daily Scam promised to give £200 if Toby fixed the computer within four days, and he completed the task without delays or problems. It was because of him that Nicky finished writing the last chapter of Gareth Whale’s biography and the Daily Scam was able to publish the serialized extracts from Nicky’s book by the deadline. Hence, he can claim the £200 that the editor had promised him for his services.
Consideration, Variation, and the Dispute Between Nicky and Toby
In Nicky’s case, she initially promised Toby £500 but later told Toby that she was short of cash and agreed to give him £300 and a photograph signed by Gareth Whale instead of £500. Toby had not only fixed her laptop within four days, well before the agreed deadline of ten days, but had also agreed to accept £300 and a signed photograph instead of £500. Hence, he has to establish the case with proper evidence of the contract to prove the breach.
He also needs to establish that both parties had agreed to and understood the contract. He must show that the terms of the contract were clear and defined. He has to show that the terms were established and that both parties decided to offer Toby the amount but did not give him the money.
Toby could also criticize the editor and Nicky for acting unethically by breaching the contract. Toby had completed fixing the computer within four days and accepted their offer despite the task’s difficulty. He had completed a task expected to take 15 days in just four days. He had saved money for Nicky and provided the completed work to the editor so that the serialized extracts from the book could be produced. He had agreed to do it personally when his company had clearly told Nicky that it would take 15 days. Consequently, his efforts must be recognized. He was considerate throughout the contract and met every deadline, but Nicky and the editor acted unethically when they did not recognize and appreciate his efforts. He can argue that the editor and Nicky were being irresponsible and inconsiderate toward his work. They availed themselves of the services without paying him what was his right. They did not make the payment for the services they received from Toby.
Implied Quality, Performance, and Legal Remedies for Breach
Moreover, the implied terms relating to the quality of the task were also met according to expectations, which means the editor and Nicky do not have sufficient reasons to refuse payment. It is advised that Toby remember all the terms and quality-related concerns of his clients. However, he fixed the computer properly, and the data was retrieved so that Nicky could finish the biography and the editor could publish serialized extracts from it.
However, Toby had two contracts to do the same task. Multiple contracts might generally complicate cases, but in Toby’s case, both parties, the editor and Nicky, knowingly made the contracts because the task was essential to them. Both parties offered the amount knowing that the other party would be paying an amount as well. Moreover, their offers and terms of the contracts were different even though they requested the same task. The editor offered £200 to complete the task in 96 hours, but Nicky offered £500 to complete the task within ten days. Although both of them contracted for the same task, the task helped both Nicky and the editor gain substantial benefits. The contract with Nicky cannot be void merely because the editor offered £200 in a later contract. He offered the contract after knowing that Nicky had already made a contract with Toby. Otherwise, he would not have entered into a contract that cost him £200. Also, neither contract mentioned that it would be void if Toby made another contract with another person for the same task. Moreover, both parties were willing to pay because the task was crucial to the success of both of them. They calculated the costs and benefits of the task, and both parties willingly offered the amounts. Consequently, Toby did not fabricate or manipulate any facts to obtain the contracts, nor did he try to hide the previous contract. As the editor got his number from Nicky, it can be assumed that both parties were aware of the contracts. Hence, it becomes clear that Toby completed the task according to the terms of both contracts and was not trying to falsify any information. Moreover, he was considerate and understanding; two contracts for the same task should not be a problem, and he has the legal right to sue both parties for payment.
To conclude, Toby has the legal right to sue the editor of the Daily Scam and Nicky because they have not paid the amounts mentioned in the contracts. Although the contracts were not written, verbal contracts can also be binding, and Nicky and the editor failed to comply with their terms. Thus, they breached the contracts. Hence, Toby can criticize their conduct as unethical as well as sue for breach of contract. Even though the opposing parties can argue that he made two contracts to provide the same service to two people and that the earlier contract therefore became void, both parties knew about the contracts and entered into them for their own benefit. Toby did not try to change or fabricate any information. Also, the terms of the contracts and payments were defined in advance, which leaves them without an excuse for failing to make payment. Hence, Toby must receive the amount owed for his work.
References
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Breach of contract. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/breach_of_contract
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
