Leslie and David settled the transaction in which Leslie was sure to buy David’s iPod for $100. Being in urgent need of money, David insisted that Leslie should buy the iPod on Friday, or he would sell it to another person. Being sure about the purchase, Leslie drove to buy accessories for her future iPod and on her way to the meeting place with David Leslie’s car got in a road accident. Thus, Leslie could not appear at the meeting with David in the settled time, and David sold the iPod to another person for $80.
Is there a reason for Leslie to sue David for the alleged violation of their verbal contract? Is there a valid consideration for David to be obliged to sell the iPod only to Leslie?
For a valid contract to be constituted between two parties, three major elements, i. e. valid offer, acceptance, and consideration, are required. A valid offer has been made by David who agreed to sell his iPod to Leslie for $100. The valid acceptance has also occurred as Leslie agreed to buy the iPod and arranged the meeting with David. The valid consideration can also be observed as it has legal value. The consideration has a legal value when one of the parties to the contract promises to do something that has not been among its duties before or promises to stop doing something from the list of its duties. David promised to sell the iPod, while Leslie promised to buy it for the settled price and on the agreed day.
As it has already been stated above, the valid contract presupposes three major elements, i. e. valid offer, acceptance, and consideration are required. In the case considered, both parties involved completed their actions so that to make the contract valid. Although it was a verbal agreement, the valid offer, made by David to Leslie, the valid acceptance by Leslie to buy the iPod from David, and the valid consideration of both parties can be observed.
Drawing from this, the contract between the two persons, Leslie and David, can be considered legally valid and binding. After making a valid offer to Leslie, David became obliged to sell the iPod to Leslie. Moreover, when Leslie executed the valid acceptance action, the contract between the persons received more legal power, which was further confirmed by the valid consideration from both parties involved in the contract.
Therefore, Leslie has legal rights to sue David for the violation of their verbal agreement concerning the iPod purchase. The verbal contract can be considered valid as its three major elements are also valid. On the other hand, David should have had the legal obligation to sell the iPod to Leslie only based on their agreement. The sale of the iPod to another person thus is a violation of the contract and Leslie can sue David for this violation.
In the case under consideration, the valid contract between Leslie and David can be observed. In spite of the fact that it is verbal, the contract possesses a valid offer, valid acceptance, and valid consideration. Drawing from this it is legally binding and obligatory for the fulfillment. Thus, Leslie is legally entitled to sue David for the violation of the verbal contract.
Emerson, J.D. Business Law. Barron’s Business Review Series, 2005.