Verbal Agreement – Recording Studio Blues

Posted: March 27th, 2020

Verbal Agreement – Recording Studio Blues

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Verbal Agreement – Recording Studio Blues

Facts

In the case, the parties involved were engaged in a verbal agreement that allowed both of them to benefit from one another. On the one hand, the defendant, Dominique Douala, required the services of the plaintiff, Willy Ferucci, to record his album at the plaintiff’s studio. In this respect, the plaintiff – in verbatim – quoted a sum that the defendant was required to reimburse for the studio sessions. However, without the presence of specific terms and conditions, the issue was complicated with the plaintiff demanding compensatory damages that amounted to $700 and the defendant opposing the claim as an outcome of the inconsistencies encompassing the agreement, which was nonetheless verbal at the time.

Issue

Is the plaintiff, Willy Ferucci, permitted to attain damages that were allegedly produced by the defendant, Dominique Douala, because of a violation of the contract that was created under verbal obligations?

Rule of Law

It is plausible to assert that the defendant does not owe any reimbursable damages to the plaintiff. Foremost, it is essential to note that both parties did not possess a solidified understanding as far as the terms and conditions of the verbal agreement were concerned. Nonetheless, if there were a written contract that specified the amount of payment that the defendant was required to pay as well as other conditions concerning the project at hand, then it would have been possible to impose contractual liability on the defendant.

Analysis

In respect to case law, it is clear that the parties involved neglected the components necessary to establish a suitable and enforceable contract. Indeed, from an analytical perspective, it seems possible to assert that the parties involved did not clarify the existence of an offer as well as the acceptance of the offer in question. For instance, the plaintiff did not establish a suitable commitment that possessed certain conditions to the defendant (offeree). Hence, to some extent, the contract was null from commencement. Consequently, it is evident that the defendant did not exhibit any acceptance towards the “offer” being made by the plaintiff (offeror) as well as the terms and conditions. Additionally, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant lacked any evidence of a consideration. Even though one of the parties expressed an interest in following through with the verbal agreement, the consequent party possessed an obligation that necessitated performance as far as the contract was concerned. Lastly, for both parties, the lack of a consideration meant that the substitute necessitated for the offer was absent and, therefore, void. As such, the verbal agreement between the parties involved was null, void, and unenforceable.

Conclusion

In both circumstances, the contractual obligations that were to be performed as an outcome of the verbal agreement were invalid. In both contexts, the parties failed to include an offer hence necessitating the lack of actions from the plaintiff and the defendant. Since the plaintiff failed to initiate a compelling offer, the defendant could not be charged for refusing to abide to an agreement that was invalid. Similarly, the defendant’s inability to communicate his acceptance concerning the proposition provided by the plaintiff was sufficient to expunge any compensatory damages required by the party in question. Essentially, the lack of the elements that often constitute contracts – offer and acceptance – discarded any damages that the plaintiff and the defendant requested. Therefore, the judge should have simply thrown out the case due to the absence of elements that overtly assert and help in determining contractual obligations and contraventions.