Question

Scenario: Mr. and Mrs. Smith, an elderly couple, were having a difficult time taking care of their daily chores. When Mr. Smith became ill, the Smiths asked a friend, Henry, to help with various tasks including housekeeping, cleaning, and cooking. Although the Smiths never promise to pay him, Henry performed the chores for eighteen months. Henry now claims that he is entitled to a reasonable value for the services performed. When the Smiths do not pay him, Henry hires and attorney who files a lawsuit.

Question: When the case goes to court, what will the attorney for the Smiths likely argue? What contract law element(s) (out of: Mutual assent (i.e., offer and acceptance) Real assent (no duress, undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake, or incapacity) Consideration and/or Legality) will the Smiths' attorney likely say is(are) missing? AND When the case goes to court, what will the attorney for Henry likely argue? What potential contract law concept will he likely rely upon?

Answer 1

For a contract to be enforceable in a court of law, it should have the essential elements of

• Offer and acceptance
• Consideration ( something in return )
• Free and mutual consent ( consent should not be caused by duress, undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud or mistake )
• Capacity to contract
• Lawful object.

When the case goes to court, the attorney for the Smiths would want to prove that the contract was either void, or that it is not voidable at the option of Henry. In order to prove that the agreement was void, the attorney would most likely cite lack of formal offer and acceptance, and absence of consideration. In order to prove that the contract was not voidable at Henry's option, the attorney would try to prove that Henry's consent to the arrangement was absolutely free, and was not caused by duress, undue influence, misrepresentation etc.

On the other hand, Henry's attorney would try to prove the existence of an enforceable contract, that although there might have been no formal offer and acceptance and no stated consideration to the contract, the Smiths were unjustly enriched at the cost of Henry, and there existed a quasi contractual obligation by virtue of which the Smiths should compensate Henry for his services to them.