Memorandum on Enforcing a Contract PA130: Contract Unit 5 Prof. Carlene DiPrenda Mahuampy Aducchi October 22nd, 2012 From: Mahuampy Aducchi To: Prof. DiPrenda Re: Interoffice Memorandum on Enforcing a Contract Turner v. Connor Our client Mr. Tunner wants to know if he has a valid contract that could be enforce. He met with Sally Connor, 92 years old, and her daughter, Rebecca, about replacing Ms. Connor’s roof and providing a home maintenance plan. Rebecca handles Ms. Connor’s financial matters but wasn’t present at the meeting. Mr.
Turner noticed some medications that Ms. Connor was taking and help her with it. Mr. Turner discussed a two (2) year home maintenance package. The cost of the roof replacement and two (2) year maintenance plan was $12,000. 00. Ms. Connor stated that the arrangement seemed fine and asked when Mr. Turner could start. Mr. Turner indicated that he could start replacing the roof next Monday. Mr. Turner showed up at Ms. Connor’s house the next Monday at 7:00 a. m. and began replacing Ms. Connor’s roof. Ms. Connor had been away for the weekend and did not return home until 3:30 p. . that afternoon. At that time, Ms. Connor told Mr. Turner that she no longer wanted Mr. Turner to provide maintenance on her home, including replacing her roof, because she had found a cheaper company. Mr. Turner packed up his materials and his crew left Ms. Connor’s home. In order to have a valid contract certain elements need to be present, the elements are: the parties, the price, the subject matter and the time for performance. We can determine based on the facts that Mr. Turner provided us with that there was a valid contract.
We have an offeror (Mr. Turner) and offeree (Ms. Connor) we know exactly what the subject matter is since our client was able to explained what the replacement of the roof and the two year contract entitles and there was a time established for Mr. Turner’s company to start the project. However there are defects to the contract that could lead to a termination of it. We learn from our client’s interviewed that he saw Ms. Connor and assist her to take a medication. The certainty of the parties involved may be jeopardize if Ms.
Connor uses as a defense her incapacity to enter into a binding contract, this “incapacity” may take the form of insanity and makes for an interesting analysis. A party “may have insane delusions regarding some matters and be insane on some subjects, yet capable of transacting business concerning matters wherein such subjects are not concerned, and such insanity does not make one incompetent to contract unless the subject matter of the contract is so connected with an insane delusion as to render the afflicted party incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the agreement or of acting rationally in the transaction. See Breeden v. Stone , 992 P. 2d 1167, 1170 (Colo. 2000) If Ms. Connor uses incapacity as a defense, the court will have to determine if her condition prevents her to be completely incapable to enter a contract. Due to the fact that the contract includes two year maintenance agreement it falls in the Statute of Fraud category of contracts that must be written. According to the information given by our client there was not a signed agreement between him and Ms. Connor.
On this matter we learn that “people are free to make any oral promise they want and to fully perform on it. Unless the court gets involved, there is no need for the formality of writing. In this way, the court can avoid the “he said/she said” dilemma. ” If everything was fine and Ms. Connor had not asked Mr. Turner to leave, then having a verbal agreement would not be an issue, but if our client insists on filing a claim then it could be. Another element that could be add to Ms. Connor defense is that she took a medicine that Mr.
Turner helped her to take, we don’t know if because she was under the influence of that medication she was not competent to sign a contract or to make any type of binding decisions, “The incapacity as a result of the intoxication must be extensive enough to deprive the person of reason and understanding” To conclude, Mr. Turner has to prove to the court that the pricing provided and the service that was going to be render was in accordance to what the market establishes, in that way