In this executive summary I will be answering the following questions about the company:1.What are the four elements of a valid contract?2.Describe the objective theory of contracts. How does that theory apply to this case?3.Why do you think the court held that there was not a valid agreement here?4.Are advertisements generally considered offers? Why or why not?5.How does this case differ from a reward situation, where a unilateral contract is formed upon completion of the requested act?By knowing the answers to these questions I can get a better understanding of how the law works in regards to contracts.
The four elements of a valid contract are Mutual Assents or a meeting of the minds, Consideration, Capacity or Competent Parties, and Legality. Mutual Assents means that each side must be clear as to the essential details, rights and obligations of the contract. Where as if the other side is to be held to the contract someone must give up something in exchange which is called consideration.
Capacity is just meaning that the person must be able to understand the contract they are entering in and cannot be drugged or mentally impaired. Legality is just as it sounds any agreement involving an illegal or illicit product / act is not a valid contract.
The objective theory of contracts proposes that would a reasonable person in the position of the offeree (receiver of the offer) believe that a transaction with the offeror (make of the offer) could be concluded by acceptance of that offer.
In this case, the Court found that it was not a valid contract because "Ã¢ÂÂ¦since the jets sell for approximately $23 million each, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet."Although advertisements are generally offers, to...