is this a voidable contract?

[shaund912]

What is the name of your state? GA

Hello,
My name is Shaun. First of all I want to apologize because this is not a real situation. I am a college student and I am trying to find some help with my homework. This is the only thing I could find. If there is a better place to look, please let me know. Ok, having that out of the way, here is the situation.

A beautiful, young, and aspiring actress has a flat tire. Darryl offers to change it for her if she would wear a bikini and mud wrestle with him tonight in the slime pit at the local tavern. She agrees but fails to show up because she does not want to hurt her image. Analyze the legal aspecst of this slippery situation.


Ok, here is what I think:
Of course it appears that it is an enforceable contract. Both parties have capacity. There was acceptance to the offer. The subject matter does not appear to be illegal. The contract is not in writing but I don't think it has to be. It appears that the contract has consideration. I can't find anything anywhere that deals with harm to reputation in a contract. There is no evidence of undue influence or duress. So in my opinion it seems as if she is bound by this contract. However, I feel that this is the wrong answer and there is something that I am missing. Could anybody please point me in the right direction or tell me a place where I can find the answer?
Thanks

 

[hexeliebe]

There is no evidence of undue influence or duress

The only reason I'm answering you is because you were upfront with this being a homework assignment and you asked only to pointed in the right direction, not for the correct answer.

Look at the above quote from your situation. Are you sure?

Go look up the definition of undue influence or duress in your state's statutes then maybe you'll find the answer.

By the way, how big are the actress's "LUNGS"???

 

[shaund912]

Thanks,
See my teacher is real ticky about reading information that isn't there. It doesn't mention that she has alternatives, such as a tire shop across the street. But at the same time, it doesn't mention that she does not have alternatives. I'm going to look up the statutes now. I think I'm going to have to give an if/then answer where it depends on information that wasn't given in the problem. At first I thought it might have been undue influence but then I talked myself out of it. It helps to have a supporting opinion.

Again,
Thanks a lot

Shaun

 

[HomeGuru]

First you must establish whether or not in fact the contract was legal and binding by using the test. In other words, was there in fact a "meeting of the minds"resulting in a legal enforceable contract. Also investigate not only into the enforceabilty of the oral contract but determine if said contract was void or voidable. Be sure to throughly understand the fact pattern and resultant answers or your response may be muddy or slippery at best.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

A beautiful, young, and aspiring actress has a flat tire. Darryl offers to change it for her if she would wear a bikini and mud wrestle with him tonight in the slime pit at the local tavern. She agrees but fails to show up because she does not want to hurt her image. Analyze the legal aspecst of this slippery situation.


Ok, here is what I think:
Of course it appears that it is an enforceable contract. Both parties have capacity. There was acceptance to the offer. The subject matter does not appear to be illegal. The contract is not in writing but I don't think it has to be. It appears that the contract has consideration. I can't find anything anywhere that deals with harm to reputation in a contract. There is no evidence of undue influence or duress. So in my opinion it seems as if she is bound by this contract. However, I feel that this is the wrong answer and there is something that I am missing. Could anybody please point me in the right direction or tell me a place where I can find the answer?
Thanks

========================================

My response:

. . . however, without reading into the situation that which is not there, sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar."

In a contract action, the words used by the contracting parties are nonhearsay when offered to show essential elements of the contract- - i.e., that an offer was made, an acceptance communicated, etc. Was it unconscionable? "Unconscionably" focuses on the terms of the agreement and whether those terms are "so one-sided as to shock the conscience." Does the agreement "shock"? No, I'm not too shocked. In fact, I'm not shocked at all. Actresses engage in these types of acts all the time.

It appears enforceable; however, I would question "damages". What are Darryl's damages? Can he prove damages? If he can't prove damages, then there's nothing to "enforce". Simply, you cannot "force" a person to wrestle. The court only has the ability to award money damages and, since Darryl can't prove "money damages", there's nothing to "enforce".

IAAL

 

[hexeliebe]

Just a point to make to everyone else who comes here and asks, "Why didn't you answer my 'situation' like you did this guys?

Well, because he was upfront, honest and let us know that it was a homework assignment and didn't try to con us into thinking this was a 'real' situation.

Also, this poster never wanted the 'answer' but just to be pointed in a different direction so that he could find the answer himself.

That's why I took a stab at it and I feel that's also the reason HG and IAAL also offered him their opinions.

Am I right guys?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

You've got that right, Hexy baby! The kid was honest and upfront about his situation. Also, for me at least, was that the issue was somewhat interesting - - more so for other readers; i.e., discussing the basic elements of a valid contract.

IAAL

 

[hexeliebe]

That's what I figured. Even at my (additional year) advanced age

I HATE BIRTHDAYS!!!!

P.S. shaund912 , let us know how this comes out in class. I agree with IAAL that many who come here could benefit from this.

There are several points that could be raised, not the least one of damages.

 

[KathiMI1]

Speaking as a reader who has no legal education... I WAS interested in reading all your responses. It was a great way to follow the legal-thinking process . Give me an update!

 

[shaund912]

I have to give a presentation on this matter on Wednesday. I'm taking an if/then approach on information that I feel is necessary but not given. For instance, it does not mention anywhere that Darryl actually changed the tire. One thing that I didn't think of until later is the fact that she may be under 18, which would make the contract voidable. Also, if Darryl is in the profession of changing tires or related profession, then he could bill her for the service. It's going to be a fairly lengthy presentation it seems, and sad to say, give no definite answer. I will present all possibilities that I can think of and likely outcomes.

Oh, to return the favor. I am an installer of 12 volt automotive electronics, from radios to alarms to remote starts. I have a vast knowledge of 12 volt systems and electronics. If anybody that helped needs any assistance with a problem please don't hesistate to contact me. I can also order equipment at much lower than retail prices.

Thanks for everybody's help

Shaun

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

The Voice of Conservatism

One thing that I didn't think of until later is the fact that she may be under 18, which would make the contract voidable.

MY RESPONSE: Why? Minors aren't allowed to do something legal and harmless like wrestling? Where is your "authority" for this thought?



Also, if Darryl is in the profession of changing tires or related profession, then he could bill her for the service.

MY RESPONSE: It's not part of the fact pattern; i.e., no one said he's a professional "tire changer". Also, if he is, so what? Unless there was some agreement for payment; i.e., dollars, then it wouldn't make a difference if Darryl was a Nuclear Engineer.

The only thing, I can see, is the question of proving damages. There's no way for Darryl to prove damages; e.g. the value of him being able to wrestle with her, or because he might be a professional tire changer. All because he might be a professional, doesn't give him a right to "charge money" for his services UNLESS there was a "meeting of the minds" on that subject BEFORE the work was done by Darryl.

So, that theory is out.

Stay with the fact pattern. Since the laws of contracts are "on the books", it is proper to presume that these concepts are "built into" the fact pattern. But, don't add "facts" where none exist.


Good luck Shaun, and let us know how it turns out. Reminds me a little of "Moot Court" training, years and years ago from law school.

IAAL

 

[shaund912]

Well as far as the under 18 part, it is my understanding that minors cannot enter into a contract. Or at least they have the option to not fulfill the contract. I'm deriving this from our book and from our teacher. As far as the professional tire changer, I remember something that was mentioned that if a someone performs a service even if not asked to, they have the right to bill the person receiving the person. The example we were given was a doctor performing CPR on an unconscious person. There was no meeting of the minds as the person was unconscious, but the doctor has the right to bill the person. Maybe I'm not understanding these things correctly. I'm not sure.

But thanks for the information

Shaun

 

[shaund912]

Another thing that I didn't mention. My teacher makes these questions broad and vague. He leaves out some information that could pull a question in different directions. That's why I try to find all possibilities.

 

[HomeGuru]

I had a broad teacher once that was vague.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Well as far as the under 18 part, it is my understanding that minors cannot enter into a contract. Or at least they have the option to not fulfill the contract.

MY RESPONSE: Shaun, you're going way, way too far afield on this. There are no facts to say the "actress" is a minor. Albeit, there are no facts to say she's an adult either. But, the fact situation would have been phrased differently if she was a minor.




As far as the professional tire changer, I remember something that was mentioned that if a someone performs a service even if not asked to, they have the right to bill the person receiving the person. The example we were given was a doctor performing CPR on an unconscious person. There was no meeting of the minds as the person was unconscious, but the doctor has the right to bill the person. Maybe I'm not understanding these things correctly. I'm not sure.

MY RESPONSE: You're right, you're not understanding. There is a difference between "changing a tire" and "saving someone's life". Performing CPR is a "necessity of life". Changing a tire is not. When someone is unconscious, and arrives by ambulance to a hospital, that is one of the few exceptions to the rule of "meeting of the minds" because the law "presumes", and speaks for that patient, that they want their life to be saved.

So, you're reading way too much into the fact pattern. Focus, my friend, focus.

IAAL