Question

Contract/Business Law

The Peterson Stores verbally promised Glick that within one month of his relocation to Oz, it would open a grocery store for him to manage there. Thereafter, Glick sold his house in Vancouver and moved to a new home in Oz and Pterson knew of his move. One month after Glick moved to Oz, Peterson told Glick that it would not open the store. Glick sued the Peterson stores.

As the judge, what is your IRAC of the case?

Issue(s), Rule(s), Analysis, Conclusion (holding)

Answer 1

Ans :

Issue : The contract is the one which is in the written from and not in the verbal from. So, Oral communication for an contract is not an valid contract. So, It can be or cannot be executed as per the requirement. And no further complications.

Rules : As per the Rules Oral contract is not an Valid contract and no legal action can be taken for the same.

Analysis : As per the given case their was an oral promise to for opening a grocery store at Oz by Glick and will be managed by Peterson Stores. which was then revoke as being an oral promise it does not have the legal implications for the same.

Conclusion (holding) : Glick cannot sue Peterson Stores for refusal of opening and managing store at Oz as it is just an oral promise and not an legal contract.