Cheat Sheet 1 - Contracts_Torts.docx

Contract- A binding agreement made between two or more persons that the law recognizes and will enforce. Ex. Buying a bus token, paying a parking fee. Contract Principles in Statute Law -- Easy as one verbal agreement sealed with handshake or complex and detailed agreement. Which can lead to comple...

Contract- A binding agreement made between two or more persons that the law recognizes and will enforce. Ex. Buying a bus token, paying a parking fee. Contract Principles in Statute Law -- Easy as one verbal agreement sealed with handshake or complex and detailed agreement. Which can lead to complex contracts. Establishes key terms or conventions (A way in which things are commonly done) such as rules of interpretations. Ex. Sales-of-good acts, as the Federal **Interpretation Act** governs this. Ex. The cellphone industry is an example of the private contracts. **Substantive Law =** Concerned with the substance of a legal problem or issue- Tells you whether you have a valid cause of action or defense=**Procedural Law =** Prescribes methods for enforcing substantive law=Tells you how to get a dispute before the appropriate court =**History of Contract Law** =Based on English common law=Before 16th century no contract law=**How Contract Law Developed** =Canadian contract law outside Quebec is based on English common law. **What is a Contract?** \*A binding agreement made between two or more persons that the law recognizes and will enforce. \*Must contain certain elements: Written or oral.\*Explicit (e.g., apartment lease with terms agreed to by landlord and tenant) or implicit (e.g., buying a cup of coffee where you serve yourself and hand money over to barista without exchanging a word) **Offer and acceptance of the offer =** one party must offer to do something, and the other person must accept in its entirety, which includes the promise to do something in the future. Terms of the contract must be negotiated which can go on for time until parties reach an agreement. EX. (1) Thelma: I offer to sell you my Apple Iphone 13 for \$900 cash to be paid on delivery of the phone to you on September 16, 2024. Louise: sends a text message to Thelma: "I accept and will see you September 16." accepted the offer, performance of acceptance: as long as she pays it in the cash that is required. contract with future consideration. **Intention to create legally binding relations =** consensus ad idem "meeting of the minds", the parties have reached an agreement on the terms and intend to be bound by them. Ad idem "to the same things", parties may be referred to as this. Some courts take a subjective approach and look at (1) whether they intended to create legally binding rules to govern their behavior (2) the meaning of the words in the contract according to those parties. Or objective/literal approach on what a "reasonable" person would think they would intend. "Golden rule": Giving words their plain and ordinary meaning. **Exchange of valuable consideration =** something of value that each party promises to provide and/or a detriment that each party promises to suffer. If one party may not provide anything of value, it lacks consideration. Gratuitous promises are not supported by consideration. **4) Capacity to contract =** parties are assumed to be roughly equivalent in bargaining power. Must meet the minimum standards of intelligence, rationality, and maturity. **Compliance with legal formality requirements =** Capacity of all parties (precondition), Intention on the part of two or more parties to create legal relations, mutual agreement, A benefit (consideration) following to each side, Compliance with formal requirements (required in only certain cases, signature, seal) **Primitivism vs. Judicial interventionism** = Positivist - The meaning to be given to the words in legal rules should be an ordinary, dictionary meaning without resorting to social, economic, or political values to aid in interpretation. Judicial interventionism - Draws on social, economic, and political values in interpreting the meaning and application of legal rules and principles. **Key Terms Promisor =** a party to a contract who undertakes to do something **Promisee =** the party who receives the benefit if the promise made by the promisor **Offeror =** a person who during the bargaining process that precedes making a contract, agrees to do something for the other party **Offeree =** a person whom an offer is made during the bargaining process **Exchange of Valuable Consideration=** Most require valid and enforceable **consideration:** something of value that each party promises to provide and/or a detriment that each party promises to suffer **=**In some cases one party to the contract may not provide anything of value and thus is lacking consideration **=Gratuitous promise =** a promise made in exchange for nothing; a promise not supported by consideration**=**They are not generally enforceable, but contract may be enforce by the court when the parties have affixed a seal to the contract **Lapse of time =** if the offeree fails to accept the offer within the period specified in the terms of the offer or if the offeree fails to accept the offer within a reasonable time period is specified in the terms of the offer, time period depends on circumstances EX. (5) Ofra offered to sell her valuable cello to Benji for \$10,000, provided that Benji indicates his acceptance on or before midnight September 15, 2024 by email. On September 16, at 30 seconds after midnight, Benji sent an email to Ofra accepting the offer. Explain if Ofra is required to honour her promise (offer) to Benji. **Lapse of time, because he accepted after the time stated under the contract. It was no longer valid** **Postal acceptance rule =** The rule that an acceptance is effective when sent by the offeree if sent by a non-instantaneous mode (regular mail), acceptance the moment you mail the letter, if it gets lost in the mail it is still accepted. **3) An exchange of something value (consideration) = Gratuitous Promise =** A promise made in exchange for nothing, (e.g.,) the promise of a donation to a charity). The price paid in return for the promise = consideration. It can be in forms of money or exchange of goods. **Promissory Estoppel =** rule whereby a person is prevented from denying the truth of a statement of a fact they made where another person has relied on that statement and acted accordingly. 5 elements: (1) Existing legal relationship, (2) clear promise or representation is made, (3) promisee relied on promise or rep, (4) promisee acted on promise or rep to their detriment, (5) promisee acted accordingly. **Deed** = document made under seal. **Bilateral** =By promise Buying an iPhone from someone for \$500 **Unilateral** = By performance Lost cat posting, if found \$200 **Invitation to treat =** an indication of a willingness to accept an offer, such an ad in the newspaper, if it is not misleading. **2) Offer and acceptance of the offer =** Nature of an offer: Must contain all terms of the contract, either expressly or implicitly. Communication of an offer: Can be made verbally, in writing, or through gestures. An offer can be accepted by promise (bilateral) or by performance (unilateral). Acceptance of an offer = (1) must be clear, unequivocal, unconditional and correspond directly with the offer (2) acceptance must be communicated by the offeree by the offeror in the manner requested or implied in the offer. **Cooling off period =** a period immediately after a contract is entered into during which time a party must resile from the contract without penalty. **Bait and switch =** Act of enticing someone to enter a store or commit a certain action by offering them something favorable without genuine ability to satisfy them and then intend redirecting them to something less preferred. **Rejection of an offer =** offer can no longer open for acceptance if rejected, cannot go back and accept the offer unless the offeror makes the original offer again. **Counteroffer =** a response to an officer when the offeree does not unconditionally accept the terms but proposes to add or modify. EX. (2) Roy: I will sell you my painting for \$1500. Dale: It's not worth \$1500. Would you consider lowering the price to \$1200? Roy: It's yours for \$1200. Dale refuses to pay and walks away. Roy threatens to sue her saying they had a deal. Explain, in contract terms, if there was "a deal" (an enforceable contract). No counteroffer, not valid because it is inquiry, It is not an enforceable contract because Dale did not make an offer to purchase it, so Roy cannot accept it was an inquiry. \(3) Yannick (Y): I will sell you my tennis racquet for \$2,000. Sinner (S): Is this a firm price or would you consider \$1900? Y: I will sell it you for \$2,000 with the case added. S: I will buy it for \$1900 with the case added. Y: Pay me S1900 with the case added. Identify for each party, whether they have made an offer, inquiry, or counteroffer and whether there has been acceptance. Order: Offer, inquiry, offer, counteroffer, acceptance **Inquiry** = questioning the offeree as to whether the offeror will consider other terms or is willing to modify the terms in the offer, negotiations. **Revocation of an offer** = The offeror may at any time before the acceptance of the offer. Declaring a nullity = no longer open for acceptance and has no legal force/effect. **Elements of a Valid Contract** **1) Intention to create a legal relationship =** courts rely on a presumption of law that promisors are bound by the promises they make. Arm's length transactions - generally binding. Non-arm's length transactions - between family members or parties in social setting, may not find to be binding. Bilateral contract - at the time it is formed, both parties have a promise to fulfill in the future. **Estopped Based on Fact =** When one person asserts as true a certain statement of a fact and another relies on that statement to their detriment, the maker of the statement will be estopped from denying the truth of the original statement in a court of law, even if it turns out to have been untrue. **Lack of capacity =** if the offeror dies, declares bankruptcy or is mentally incompetent the offer is no longer open for acceptance they lack capacity to enter the contract. EX. (4) On September 2, 2024, Rocky, by email, offered to buy Sheera's sofa bed for \$2,000. The offer contained full details about method of payment and how the sofa bed would be delivered. One hour after he made the offer, he had a stroke that severely damaged his brain. Two hours after the offer was made to her, Sheera responded by email that she accepted the offer and all the associated terms. Explain if Rocky and Sheera have an enforceable contract, with reference to contract principles. When he made the offer he had capacity, before offer was accepted did not have capacity. He lacked the capacity at the time of acceptance, so offer is no longer open for acceptance. **Adequacy of consideration =** Courts enforce contracts with grossly adequate consideration for a promise, provided there is equal bargaining power between the parties and no evidence of fraud, undue influence, or duress. **Past consideration =** an act perfumed, or something given before a contract is made, which by itself is not the consideration for the contract. **Existing Legal Obligation =** The promise to do something that another party is already obligated to do under another contract or under statute cannot be a consideration. Must be fresh consideration for new promise. **Debtor-Creditor Relationships =** Debtor obligated to pay the creditor a certain sum of money. Debtors obligations discharged when full amount of debt is paid in accordance with the terms in the contract. **Quantum Meriut =** "as much as is deserved". Doctrine stating that no one should unjustly benefit from the labour and materials of another; implies a promise to pay a reasonable amount even in the absence of a contractual term for price. EX. (18) Richie asked Dezzy to tear down his garage and build a new one. Richie and Dezzy had previously worked together in a renovation company. Dezzy is an experienced renovator. Dezzy said he could do it during his 2- week holiday period in August. He completed the work and then he and Richie sat down to discuss renumeration for the job. "Here is what I propose, Dezzy. I will pay you for your materials, but not for your labour." "That's not fair!", replied Dezzy. "Well, I don't have to pay you anything because we never agreed on payment" said Richie. Explain if Richie is right. Refer to contract principles. quantum meruit, imploed contract b/c prior professional relationship not intended to be free, reasonable expectation of payment, should be pad for time and effort. Implied understanding he would be paid for labour and materials. She has to pay a reasonable amount for his work. **4) Legality =** To be binding, contract must have a legal purpose, and purpose cannot violate any statute or public policy. Courts will not enforce - unlawful purpose (void/illegal) or both. If the contract is being void for being unlawful, the court may grant some remedies to the parties who entered into it, Attempting to restore them to their original positions. Ex: money and goods exchanged but contract is unlawful, may order goods/money to be returned. If it is unlawful and illegal, the court won\'t grant any remedies. Ab intitio = "from the beginning" a contract that is void from the beginning, cannot give rise to any rights **Contracts that Violate Statute Law** = Prohibited activities. Example: murder, robbery, assault. Prohibited agreements. Example: agreements to fix prices, eliminate competition, allocate markets, create monopolies. Activities with statutory requirements. Example: contract in which an employee agrees not to make any workplace injury claims if injured on the job. Non-competition clauses = contract clause restricting a previous employee's ability to compete with the previous employer, primarily based on duration and geography. Non-solicitation clauses = contract clause restricting a previous employee's ability to solicit the previous employer's potential and current clients and employees. **Contracts that Violate Public Policy =** Contracts designed to interfere with the administration of justice. Contracts that injure the public service. Contracts that promote unnecessary litigation. Contracts that suppress evidence of a crime **Restitution =** Law of restitution to put a party back in the position they should have been if the contract was not illegal. Restitution has been permitted where: (1) a contract is illegal and granting relief is clearly not contrary to public policy, or (2) a party acted in good faith or in justifiable ignorance of whether the contract was legal or illegal. **Formal Writing Requirements** Formal and Simple Contracts = Formal contract ("deeds"): Are in writing and sealed by the promisor. Simple contract: May be oral or in writing and is not a formal contract. **The Statute of Frauds** = Enacted in 1677 England to deal with long-term leases and land rights. The Statute of Frauds requires that certain contracts be in writing and signed by the parties. E.g., contracting with minors; contracts for the sale of land. Do not have to be made under seal unless absence of consideration. Certain situations that are now dealt with by simple contracts, and these contracts that must be in writing because of the statute. **Technical Requirements for Written Contracts** = Identify the parties to the contract by name or description. Identify the terms of the contract including the offer that has been accepted and the consideration. Be signed by the party whose promise is being enforced. Include a printed or stamped signature which may suffice in place of an actual signature. Locus Sigilli "LS" with circle next to a signature "the place of the deal" Can also be signed by witness = affidavit of execution. When to use a seal: Formal contract, Gratuitous promise, Corporate contract, Change to document or clause with no new consideration **Protecting Weaker Parties =** Courts generally have a "hands off" approach to enforcing contracts but will sometimes intervene where parties are clearly unable to protect themselves in the bargaining process., one party takes advantage of a position of trust **Minors =** At common law, an individual under the age of 21. Minority status is defined by statute law, lowering the age of majority to 18 or 19 in most provinces/territories. Ontario = 18 **Contract Rights and Obligations Generally** = Repudiates **-** a reject or disown as having no force or authority. 2 types when a minor makes a contract for things non necessary (1) Contracts that are void *ab inito.* If contract is prejudicial or no benefit is treated to courts as void ab initio - it was invalid from the beginning. (2) Contracts that are voidable at the option of the minor. voidable, allowing minors to repuidate them in some cases even after age of majority is reached **Enforceable Contracts Purchases of Necessaries** = A minor is liable to pay a reasonable price for necessaries that have been sold and delivered to the minor. Goods that are "necessaries for life" are contextual; socio-economic class may be relevant. Ex: buys expensive clothes to be properly dressed at work, to earn a living, medial/dental **Enforceable Contracts: Employment** = Bound by their terms unless they are not beneficial to the minor (appropriate salary, taking advantage of skills/aims and desires). The test of "benefit" may be whether a "prudent and informed parent" would have approved the contract for his or her minor child. **Contracts for Non-Necessaries =** always enforceable, but if the contract is: (1) Fully executed: the contract cannot be set aside; the court may order refund if price paid by the minor was not reasonable. (2) Not fully executed: the minor may avoid the contract but must return goods or money paid by other party. (3) Ongoing: the minor can repudiate future liability but cannot recover money spent for benefits already received. Ex: streaming service **Effect of Reaching the Age of Majority on Minors' Contracts** = If the contract is for non-necessaries and has not been repudiated by the minor during their minority, contract has to be classified as to type: (1) Contracts for non-necessaries that are valid unless minor repudiates them. Ex: Share transfer, partnership, and marriage contracts. Repudiation may be oral, written, or inferred from an act.(2) Contracts for non-necessaries that are invalid unless ratified by the minor. Presumed to be valid unless challenged before reaching majority age. Contracts for non-necessaries involving a one-time benefit for the minor are invalid unless ratified in writing and signed by the minor. **Void Contracts =** Contracts that are clearly prejudicial or harmful to the minor. Consequences of Void Minors' Contracts: The minor is entitled---not being bound to the contract--- to have all of their money or property returned. The adult need not be restored to their pre-contract position Ex: wealthy minor gives money to cousin who has been bankrupt 2 times Would be prejudicial bc interest is low and loosing money is high **Law Affecting Minors in BC =** Contract is enforceable under some statute. Minor validates the contract on attaining the age of majority. The minor wholly or partly performs the contract shortly after attaining the age of majority. The contract is not repudiated by the minor within a year of having attained the age of majority. **Drunkenness =** an intoxicated party may void a contract on the basis of their own intoxication when (1) The intoxicated party, because of the intoxication did not know what they were doing \(2) The sober party was aware, or ought to have been aware, or the intoxicated state of the other party (3) Upon becoming sober, the intoxicated party moved promptly to repudiate the contract. Court also considers willfully blind to the other persons intoxicated state given the circumstances willfully blind =Closing the conscious mind to the likely harmful consequences of one\'s actions Presumes the sober party had knowledge of the intoxication of the other party where there is evidence of intoxication **Mental Illness =** generally, the law is concerned with the lack of capacity arising from mental illness.E.g., people who have schizophrenia may have delusions but may have the capacity to enter into some contracts if they can manage their own affairs. \(6) Rudy, a chicken farmer, offered to sell 500 dozen fresh eggs to Raz, who owns several bakeries. Rudy and Raz frequently do business together whereby Rudy offers the eggs and Raz lets him know with a quick text message within 24 hours whether he needs the eggs. Raz was busy interviewing people for jobs and forgot to let Rudy know that he wanted the eggs, especially since he had a big contract to bake thousands of loaves of bread for some major stores. He contacted Rudy 36 hours after the offer was made and Rudy told him that the eggs were no longer available. Raz sued Rudy for breach of contract because he had to scramble to find other eggs at a much higher price. Raz argued that there was not time deadline specified in the offer for Raz to accept the offer. Explain how the courts will determine if the elements of offer and acceptance were present such that there was an enforceable contract. **Offer, no time specified to respond to the offer in terms of acceptance, contacted via text. The court considers lapse of time Raz accepted the offer too late since the contract was silent about a time deadline, the court will read in a timeline based on the history of dealings, the nature of the contract (item of eggs), and they will determine whether Raz responded too late but there was a lapse of time. Timeline for eggs are different b/c they are perishable.** \(7) Blossom offers to sell all her garden tools to Tyrone for \$3500. Tyrone said he needed to go to the bank to arrange a loan to purchase these tools. Moments later Blossom read an advertisement from Ariel who was looking to buy garden tools. She contacted Ariel and immediately delivered the tools to her for the price of \$3500. That evening, Tyrone called Blossom to say the he had the money and would come over to buy the tools. "Sorry, the tools are gone", declared Blossom. "See you in court", retorted Tyrone. Explain if Blossom has breached her contract with Tyrone after he accepted her offer. **Revocation has not occurred, because legal requirement for revocation is communication. She did not communicate with Tyrone that the offer has been revoked. Revocation can be performed anytime before it has been accepted. Tyrone is accepting by performance by coming with the money** \(8) Lily offered to sell her purebred boxer puppy to Fran for \$2400. Fran said she needed to think about it and check with her bank to see if she could access sufficient funds to pay for the puppy. While she was at the bank explaining to the teller that she wanted to buy this puppy, the bank employee told her that he had just purchased a purebred boxer puppy from the same breeder. "But there was only one puppy for sale", said Fran. "I know" said the teller, who then proceeded to show her a photo of the puppy. Fran verified that that was the puppy she wanted and that Lily offered her. Fran then contacted Lily to accept Lily's offer. Lily said: "There is no offer to accept" Explain what Lily might argue when Fran sues her for breach of contract. **Indirect revocation, she cannot accept an offer that was not out there. She said she needed to think about it, so there was no offer to be accepted and no breach in contract.** \(9) Bob offers to sell his bicycle to Ameen for \$500. Ameen says he needs to think about it and they agree to discuss it the next day. Five minutes after Bob makes the offer to Ameen, Luigi, who hears about the offer contacts Bob to discuss this, and during the discussion, he says he will pay Bob \$600 for the bicycle. Bob thinks about it for a few hours then contacts Luigi and says: "I will sell you my bicycle for \$600." Luigi happily accepts this offer and pays for the bicycle. Ameen calls Bob a day later and is furious when he discovers that Bob has sold the bicycle. Explain if Bob's transaction with Luigi is "legal" in contract law. **Bob made an offer to Ameen, time to think about it so no binding agreement. Luigi offered Bob 600 for bike, which Bob considered and accepted. Contract was formed he could sell bike to him b/c Ameen not accepted original offer, Bob did not make promise to keep offer open. Revocation of the offer to Ameen, can be revoked any time before acceptance. Was legal b/c no binding contract with Ameen.** \(10) Pete sends Charlize a letter offering to buy Charlize's trailer for \$2200.Charlize receives the letter on September 3, 2024. The offer specifies that Charlize must respond on or before September 5. Charlize mails her response on September 4, 2024 accepting all the terms of the offer. Pete receives Charlize's letter on September 10 and tells Charlize that her acceptance was too late; no contractual obligations can flow from their interchange. Explain if an enforceable contract has been formed. **Offer and acceptance. Postal acceptance rule = was sent in mail/accepted before Sept 5, so it was accepted and offer valid. Is valid** \(11) Effie contacted Cat Rescue Paradise, a registered charity, and offered to make a donation of \$25,000 with instructions that they use the money for what ever purpose is most fitting. She promised to transfer the funds to them on or before September 10, 2024. She did not transfer the funds, as promised. Explain if Cat Rescue Paradise will be successful in a claim against Effie in contract law; she made a promise that she did not fulfill. **gratuitous promise, it is non-binding under contract law. Charitable donation pledges can be enforced under certain conditions, for example when the charity relies on the promise as a detriment = promissory estoppel. But no indication cat rescue has taken reliance on her promise so it would not apply.** \(12) Rami's Play Centre advertised seeking donors for a new playground that would cost \$75,000 to build. Sal responded to the advertisement pledging (promising) to contribute \$5,000 towards the playground. On the date when it was agreed that he would make the payment, he announced that he changed his mind; he refused to pay the \$5,000. Explain if Sal's pledge is enforceable such that the court will require him to pay the promised \$5,000. **(similar to one above) gratuitous promise. Not enforceable** \(13) Jo was starting a business as a caterer. She had very little money and she needed a large kitchen to do her cooking and baking. Keri was a neighbour who heard about Jo's plans and her predicament. She had a second home that was vacant so she offered her large kitchen in the second home for a minimal charge of \$400 per month for 12 months, starting May 1, 2023, while she got her business going. Jo was very grateful. She bought all the kitchen utensils and other supplies and began using the kitchen on May 1. On September 1, Jo explained that her expenses had increased and she just could not afford to continue paying \$400 monthly to rent Keri's kitchen. Keri kindly lowered the price to \$100 per month. After a few months at the lower rent, Keri told Jo- you must pay me back rent for all those months you were paying only \$100 because I realize that that was too little. Jo responded that it was not fair, and that she had relied on the promise to pay only \$100. Keri said "that was a gratuitous promise and you now have to pay me back rent and the higher rent going forward. " She then sued Jo for the back rent for breaching the agreement to pay \$400 monthly. Jo argued that they had an agreement for the lower rent, and Keri argued that it was not an enforceable agreement. Explain what argument Jo can raise in this situation to avoid a finding of breach of contract. priomissory estoppel, clear promise to lower rent, joes relied on that promise. Detriment, if she had known she would take back the rent she would had made different arrangements. Inequitable not a breach of contract \(14) Rennie offered to sell his lawnmower to Iris for \$20, despite that it was worth \$200. He knew that Iris was a student who was working two part-time jobs to pay for her studies and for her rental and other living expenses. Rennie wanted to do a good deed. When the lawnmower broke down half-way through the first use, Iris was furious. She returned the mower ot Rennie and asked for her \$20 back. She explained: "My friend in the paralegal program told me that you are "in breach of contract" in that you promised me a working lawn mower. I want a full refund." Rennie replied: "I graduated from that paralegal program. I made a gratuitous promise because there is not adequate Consideration, so there is no contract, and you have no case." Explain **if Rennie is right.** **was consideration because she paid, even if it was 20. Not gratuitous because exchange of consideration. Valid claim if the contract said that it was a working lawn mower** \(15) Al offered to buy Pacino's motor cycle for \$100. The motor cycle was almost new and was worth \$4500. Al said to Pacino: "If you do not sell me your motor cycle for \$100, my buddies know where to find you and your family, and you will soon be planning a funeral." Pacino accepted the \$100 and promised to deliver the motor cycle to Al the next day. Instead he sent a courier to Al with the \$100 returned and a message that the deal was off. If Al sues Pacino claiming breach of contract, would he be successful? **No because the contract was illegal therefore void** \(16) Joshna had a Zoori necklace that her aunt had given her 40 years ago, and she did not like this necklace. She gave it to Pat as a birthday gift. A day after she gifted Pat, Pat saw a newspaper article about Zoori necklaces like hers, explaining that it was a rare necklace made in Italy from precious stones; it was worth \$5,000. Pat immediately contacted Joshna and sent her a copy of the article, offering to pay her \$5,000. Joshna was thrilled at Pat's honesty and integrity........until on the day when she agreed to make the payment, she refused to pay. Joshna made a claim in breach of contract. Explain if there was an enforceable contract. original gift - **no consideration, past consideration, offer was given after. Gratuitous promise. Not breach of contract** \(17) Elsa made an agreement with Tevya to design and sew a custom suit for Tevya using Tevya's favourite colour of turquoise fabric; the price was \$2500. They agreed that the suit would be ready on or before September 4 because Tevya, a professor at college, wanted to wear this special suit for the first week of classes. On September 1, Elsa contacted Tevya to say that she got behind, and would not be able to complete the job on time unless he paid an additional \$500 so that Elsa could refuse other work in order to complete his job. Tevya agreed to make the additional payment after the completion of the job. At the end of the job, Tevya refused to make the extra payment of \$500. Is Elsa's demand for the total price of \$3,000 enforceable? Explain. **Not obligated to pay b/c she was already bound by original agreement. Her agreement to pay was made under pressure. Not enforceable.** \(18) Richie asked Dezzy to tear down his garage and build a new one. Richie and Dezzy had previously worked together in a renovation company. Dezzy is an experienced renovator. Dezzy said he could do it during his 2- week holiday period in August. He completed the work and then he and Richie sat down to discuss renumeration for the job. "Here is what I propose, Dezzy. I will pay you for your materials, but not for your labour." "That's not fair!", replied Dezzy. "Well, I don't have to pay you anything because we never agreed on payment" said Richie. Explain if Richie is right. Refer to contract principles. **quantum meruit, imploed contract b/c prior professional relationship not intended to be free, reasonable expectation of payment, should be pad for time and effort. Implied understanding he would be paid for labour and materials. She has to pay a reasonable amount for his work.**