Contract Law
...s legally sufficient. Gifts and moral obligations are not considered valid. The third element is Contractual Capacity the parties involved must be able to understand what they are getting into, people judged insane cannot have contractual capacity. The fourth and final element of a contract is Lawful Object; the object up for consideration must meet the element of the law. If an item that is being offered is illegal a contract is not valid. I do not think it is legal to sell a town so I do not know how we could offer to sell Bigtown to anyone. The objective theory of contracts is a theory that states the intent to contract is judged by the reasonable person standard and not by the subjective intent of the parties. Basically what we have here is that contracts need to be reasonable to both parties, a good example of this would be if you were to enter into a contract with an elderly person that did not understand the ramifications of the contract you could be found to be unreasonable and the contract could be null and void. In the case where you want to offer Bigtown for sale on eBay in mind this is not reasonable and therefore it would be an illegal contract. Do you really think that offering Bigtown for sale on eBay is reasonable? You cannot sell a town we do not want to even attempt to sell Bigtown, once it is posted on eBay’s site would could be bound by contract to sell the town but in essence we cannot and we would have the potential for a legal battle on our hands. This is not a good place to pour the cities funds when we are trying to generate tourism. Trying to sell Bigtown on eBay would be illegal and unreasonable. In the case I mentioned earlier about Pepsi and its offer to give away a fighter jet the court ruled in favor of Pepsi because there offer was advertisement and was not a reasonable offer. The fighter jets that Pepsi was offering cost $23 million dollars the court ruled that it was not reasonable for Pepsi to make that offer and therefore they were not bound to any sort of contract. The flip side to this case could be was that Mr. Leonard did his homework and figured he could me make some considerable money off of Pepsi’s offer and here is where objective theory comes into play. Mr. Leonard’s intent was to make some money but because of the reasonable person standard this was not reasonable to Pepsi, basically Mr. Leonard was going to pay $700,000 for a fighter jet that was worth $23 million this is not reasonable and is subjective to the reasonable person standard. These are two different ideas why the court favored Pepsi in this matter. This very same type of thing could happen if the city of Bigtown was to be offered for sale on eBay. In general advertisements are not considered offers; they are merely considered invitations to make an offer. If an advertisement is very specific it could be considered an offer. If a boat dealer was to place an ad with the exact information abo...