Contract question from legal environment of business test?
Question by squall0229: Contract question from legal environment of business test?
On November 1, 2006 Tanya contracted with Lester to provide makeup and hairstyling for Lester’s music group during his tour that would last from January 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007. Lester signed a commitment to pay Tanya $ 1000 per week for this work. Tanya did not sign anything but showed up to get on the bus when the tour started. For two months Tanya did the work but she got fed up with the constant noise on the bus so she quit. To get a replacement Lester had to pay $ 1250 per week for the rest of the tour, so he sued Tanya for compensatory damages. What is the best defense argument that Tanya can make? Please explain it.
Best answer:
Answer by rolandhand
The question, as stated, says that Tanya contracted with Lester to provide services to Lester. Therefore, formation arguments are not likely to prevail. Moreover, the statue of frauds is not implicated because the contract could be fully performed within one year, so the lack of a writing will not defeat the contract. Also Tanya’s showing up and performing the work is an indication that she accepted the contract.
The best defense is to find an acceptable reason for Tanya to stop performance. There are two ways to approach this, which amount to the same argument.
Tanya can argument that there was a mistake during the formation of the contract regarding the conditions on the bus. She would argue that the conditions she had to work under, the noise on the bus, is a material part of the contract, that the contract was silent on, and yet that Lester knew that the conditions were material, and that his failure to disclose the conditions acted as mistake that should charged against Lester, giving Tanya the right to rescind the contract. She might even say that lester in faliure to mention the conditions should be charges with a fraude.
The other way of arguing it, is to treat the conditions on the bus as an implied condition subsequent, and the failure of Lester to provide a non-noisy work environment, discharged Tanya’s duty of performance.
Using older terms (still valid today), she would argue that the noise on the bus granted her an equitably right of recession, as it was material to the contract, and not forseeable by her at the time of formation.
Add your own answer in the comments!