Advise Kacy on whether she has a contractual right to the art collection.

Issue:

Does Kacy have a contractual right to renessa’s art collection?

Relevant law:

Contractual rights usually involve business matters, including the provision of products and

services however, they can also involve other types of subject matter. This will result in the

recording of both on assets and revenue in the future when the terms of those contracts or

agreement are being met in order words it must be binding in renessa’s and Kacy case.

Analysis:

In renessa’s case she did not agree to Kacy paying half of the 10 thousands, therefore Kacy

does not have a contractual rights. In order to have contractual rights both parties have to agree

when it comes to payment and terms.

Kacy also did not agree on the given day and accepted the offer the next day so we basically

can state at this point that both parties did not agree. Renessa gave her offer on a specific date, it

was binding for that date, selling it after was the right of the owner because she also stated a

specific price.

Renessa did not confirm Kacy offer so she didn’t know if she agreed or not even though

renessa has the right to her art collection because she is the answer, both did not deal with the

situation correctly.

Conclusion :

Due to the fact that the situation was not dealt with properly, Kacy believes she has

contractual rights to some silence means consent, so Renessa’s silence to Kacy meant she agreed

to Kacys terms. Renessa on the other hand can argue that her silence means she did not consider

nor confirm kacy’s bid and she is not obligated to any contract.
2. Advise Mya

Issue:

The issue is whether Antonio actions amount to past consideration.

Relevant law:

A past promise or act which forms the basis of a future promise. It is consideration that has

already flowed from the promise act or forbearance predates the promisor’s promise.

Analysis:

In Mya’s case, Mya purchased a Michael Kors watch from Antonio for 350.00 including a 1

year warranty therefore the warranty covers for the watch experiencing some issue.

Antonio has breached the contract between him and Mya by not giving the refund because

when Mya bought the Michael kors watch it came with ah one year warranty and it has only been

3 months so he owes Mya a refund on the watch.

I will advise Mya to take Antonio to court because he made a one year warranty after she

purchase the Michael kors watch and not before she bought it. He didn’t tell her that the watch

has little problem before he sold the watch to Mya. She have the right to get ah refund from

Antonio because he breached her.

Conclusion:

In conclusion we strongly advise Mya to sue Antonio because he breaches their contract.
Antonio stated to Mya when purchasing the watch that she gets a one year warranty and the year
is not up as yet therefore Mya has the right to get a refund.