- Does Natasha have a contract for the 30,000 bracelets? Justify your answer.
The answer is yes, Natasha have a contract for the 30,000 bracelets. From the facts of the case scenario, this type of contract is a simple contract which is made orally between Natasha and Frank. For a contract to be valid, or a proof that a Contract exists, the law requires that there must be an agreement, a consideration and there must be an intention to form legal relations, (Bayern, 2015).
An agreement is based on the mutuality between the parties to a contract and it contains an offer and an acceptance, it forms the very core and basis of every contract, where a contract is said to exist when a valid offer is followed by a valid acceptance, (Turner, 2014). An offer is an unconditional statement of a person’s intention to be bound by the terms that he makes, the offer must be on a fairly certain terms, (Turner, 2014). From the facts, Natasha made an offer to Frank by asking whether the store had the ‘bite bracelets’, the terms were certain in that Natasha wanted the ‘bite bracelets’ which she inquired and made an offer to Frank, hence even fulfilling one of the strict rules of making an offer that it must be communicated to the offeree who was Frank.
The other facet of an agreement is whether there was an acceptance of the offer by the Offeree who is Frank. Acceptance is a statement of intention to be bound absolutely and unconditionally by the terms of the offer or rather the positive response to an offer which is unconditional, (Baker, 2000, Turner, 2014). The acceptance must be unequivocal too; this is the mirror image of acceptance. Lord Langdale in Hyde v Wrench  49 ER 132 held that if the offer had at once been unconditionally accepted, there would undoubtedly have been a perfect binding contract.
Was there any consideration for the contract to be complete? Consideration is some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or the opposite that is forbearance, detriment or loss undertaken by another, (Markovits, 2020). One of the basic rules of consideration is that considerations need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient, (Markovits, 2020). This connotes fairness in bargain and the parties should decide whether they are satisfied with their bargain, Patterson J in Thomas v Thomas  2 QB 851 held that considerations means something which is some value in the eye of the law, moving from one party: it may be of some benefit to the party, or some detriment to the other; but at all events it must move from one party. Since consideration is something of value, from the facts in the case scenario, after Natasha inquired about the price, Frank said that they would cost $30,000 each which was a discount to her.
From the above, I can authoritatively and conclusively say that there was a contract, the offer, acceptance and the consideration are the indivisible trinity and facets of one identical notion which is that of bargain, ( Harmson, 1938).
- What are the terms of the contract that includes the Glocks?
The terms as to the Glocks from the facts are express terms, (Manesh, 2013), and since as I have alluded to above, that this is just but a simple contract, the existence of express terms is clear from the case scenario. Express terms are those terms that are directly acknowledged and stated by both parties, they can be written or verbal,(Manesh, 2013). The terms as to the cleaning of the Glocks forms what are known as conditions, (Basedow, 1996), they are at the core of the contract and they are the obligations that a party is required to fulfill, a breach of which attracts damages and the aggrieved party has a right to terminate the contract ,(Basedow, 1996).
- What can Natasha do with respect to the contract that includes the Glocks? Justify your answer.
Since the contractual terms as regards the Glocks are conditions, core to the fulfillment of the contractual terms, which Franks breaches, this is seen where Natasha after returning back to her apartment she finds that one of the guns is still dirty and that it has a scratch, this is an outright breach of the contractual duties which Frank has breached. A Breach of condition of a contract can constitute a breach of the contract as a whole. This allows the non-breaching party to sue for damages as well as rescission of the contract.
- Do Natasha and Clint have a contract? Justify your answer.
Yes, Natasha and Clint have a contract, the strict rules of contract still applies here as I have alluded to beforehand on agreement, consideration and intention to create legal relations. Acceptance must contain an offer and acceptance for the contract to exist. In this scenario, Clint has agreed to practice with Natasha some of the knife throwing and fight moves, when Natasha arrives, Clint tells her that she owes him a dinner, which in turn Natasha accepts by saying “fine fine”
- Can Natasha terminate the Contract of the bracelets? Justify your answer.
Yes Natasha can terminate the contract of the bracelets. It is a rule in Contract Law that the essence of consideration is to distinguish between bargains and bare promises or gifts, it shows that a bargain exists. Natasha and Frank had agreed that Natasha would get the bracelets for only $30000 which was a discount on each of the bracelets, on payment however, Frank disappoints Natasha by selling the Bracelets to her for $40000 on ‘boss orders’.
Under the doctrine of Promissory estoppels, the doctrine acts to prevent a person from going back on a promise if it would be unjust and inequitable to do so, (Baird, 2019). The doctrine can be used as a sword or a shield. Lord Denning in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees  KB 130 developed the doctrine and held that:
“A promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person making the promise was going to be acted upon by the person to whom it was made, and which in fact was so acted upon. In such cases, the courts have said that the promise must be honored… the logical consequence, no doubt, is that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger debt if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration.”
For the doctrine to apply there must be an existing contractual relationship, (Gan, 2015), in this, we have seen that there was a contract existing between Natasha and Frank. Further, there must be some promise that was made by one party to the other, (Calleros, 2012), and the party making the promise had full knowledge that the other party will rely on that promise, (Alden, 2017). Form the facts, Frank had told Natasha that Bracelet would cost her $30000 each, which statement Natasha relied upon, but on purchasing, the cost is $40000 for each bracelet which Frank denies that there was a discount and the new price is as a result of the orders from the boss.
From those facts, Natasha can rely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel to terminate the contract of the bracelets for breach of that promise of discount. Frank had agreed to waive the price of the bracelets, under the doctrine, he is stopped from going back against his own promise. Hence the justification for termination of the contract.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )