Contracts and Pledges
Based on the scenario, create a 2- to 3-page Microsoft Word document that includes the answers to the
�Was Alex�s signature on the paperwork considered a binding contract? Why or why not?
�Should the Dunphys be responsible for the roofing bill? Why or why not?
�Would it make a difference if the Dunphys were on vacation in Hawaii when the work was done? Why
or why not?
�Will the charity be able to legally enforce the pledge Claire made? If so, why might the charity choose
not to enforce a lawful pledge? If not, why not?
CONTRACTS AND PLEDGES 2
Contracts and Pledges
Based on the scenario of Dunphy’s house roofing the contract that Alex signed on the
paperwork is not considered binding under any circumstances. A binding contract must contain
an agreement and consideration from a viable source, in this case the owners of the house.
In terms of consideration factors like performance, terms and conditions and liability
must be considered before binding any contract (Wilkinson-Ryan, 2012). However, in the case of
Alex, the aforementioned were not taken into consideration despite having signed the contract.
Additionally, the contract cannot be binding since the parties involved were not competent
enough to be in a contractual agreement. A minor is not a valid party to enter into a binding
agreement. Therefore, the contract signed by Alex is not binding since she was a minor and
hence does not have the legal power to enter into a binding contract.
Dunphy is not responsible for the roofing bill since he did not take part or get involved in
agreement that permitted the act to be officiated. The roofers did not take all the required
precaution when signing the contract. It is normally required that before two parties come to a
consensus, all the factor must be put into consideration and all the parties involved must receive
full details before getting into the contract. Furthermore, Dunphy did not call for the roofing and
had not connection or involvement in their act. He was not informed of the roofing despite being
the owner of the houses who is the liable party to make a decision concerning the house. The
roofers acted without consent from Mr. Dunphy and therefore cannot hold him reliable for their
actions. The contract was not binding since it was signed by a minor and all the considerations
CONTRACTS AND PLEDGES 3
were not taken into account (Griffith & Yanhui, 2015). Accordingly, Mr. Dunphy is not reliable
or held accountable for paying the roofing bill.
The obligations and conditions of a contract require each party to fulfill all the terms and
requirement of the contract adequately. Therefore in the event that one part is not in the vicinity a
suitable and considerate candidate can act on their behalf. The person must equally have the legal
power to sign the contract with the approval of the own. Without this approval, the contract is
not considered binding. Therefore in this case, the contract would still not be considered binding
if Dunphy was on vacation since the party involved had no legal power to sign the agreement.
Additionally, the agreement cannot be official without the approval of the owner, either verbal or
written. Accordingly, it would make no difference if Dunphy was on vacation in Hawaii.
The case of Claire’s donation to the charity is an example of a promissory estoppel,
where a promisee undergoes detriment as a result of relying on a promise that the promisor fails
to honor the promise (Ayotte & Hansmann, 2015). Claire who is the donor promises a donation
to the non-profiting organization but later fails to comply with her promise. Given that Claire had
made a charitable pledge and the charity had promised to give a t-shirt in exchange, the contract
between Claire and the charity can be considered binding.
The charity can either decide to enforce the pledge or not, based on the promise of the
donor. In this case, the charity can enforce the pledge on Claire to make the donation for the dog
as required under charitable pledges.
CONTRACTS AND PLEDGES 4
Griffith, D. A., & Yanhui, Z. (2015). Contract Specificity, Contract Violation, and Relationship
Performance in International Buyer–Supplier Relationships. Journal of International
Marketing, 23(3), 22-40.
Ayotte, K., & Hansmann, H. (2015). A nexus of contracts theory of legal entities. International
Review of Law & Economics, 421-12.
Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2012). LEGAL PROMISE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT. Wake
Forest Law Review, 47(4), 843-873