Fred Ziffel Versus Oliver Douglas

Fred Ziffel Versus Oliver Douglas IRAC Analysis
Name
Institution
Fred Ziffel Versus Oliver Douglas IRAC Analysis
Issue 1: Does Fred setting a date by word of mouth and Oliver agreeing to it through the same mode constitute a valid contract?
Rule: The elements that must be available for a contract to be considered valid are an offer from one party, acceptance from the other, intention to establish some legal relationship, and some consideration, which is often money (Steinberger, 2007).
Analysis: In the described scenario, Fred Ziffel’s act of asking Oliver how much he could charge for drilling a well near his house to supply him with better tasting water was an offer. In return, Oliver accepted the offer by stating that he could drill the well to a certain depth within the requested time. The latter then proceeded to request for a down payment, which was provided by Fred. Therefore, a consideration was offered. Lastly, commercial agreements are generally assumed to have an intention to establish some legal relation (Steinberger, 2007). Whether the contract was in writing or oral is not a major issue here because this contract is not among those that have to be put in writing.
Conclusion: Since all the elements of a valid contract were available in this agreement, it is legally enforceable.
Issue 2: Does the unintentional breaking of the drill translate to a frustration that can excuse Oliver from completing the project by the agreed date?
Rule: Frustration is the lawful termination of some contract because of unforeseen conditions.

These conditions have to be significant enough to prevent the achievement of the contract objectives, render the execution of the contract illegal, or make the execution of the contract practically impossible. However, for frustration to discharge a contract and excuse one from failure to perform, the circumstances have to be truly unforeseeable (McGarry & Kent, 2017).
Analysis: In this case, the breaking of the drill and the plugging of the hole made it practically impossible for Oliver to perform. However, the drill broke because he allowed himself to be distracted by his wife. In other words, under the principle of tort, he did not exercise reasonable care while executing his mandate (McGarry & Kent, 2017). Conclusion: The breaking of the drill does not excuse Oliver from non-performance. It is only Fred’s consent that can allow him/her to get the extra 1 month that he was asking for.
Issue 3: Does the inability of Oliver to complete the project within the agreed time warrant the compensations sought by Fred?
Rule: Both repudiation and tort principles can be applied hereAnalysis: Under repudiation, Oliver’s action of stating that he could no longer complete the project within the agreed time qualified as anticipatory repudiation (McGarry & Kent, 2017). In other words, he was notifying the other party that he would not be able to complete the contract as agreed because of specific reasons. However, by law, Fred is entitled to either accept this anticipatory repudiation and sue for damages, or reject it and force Oliver to find ways of completing the contract as agreed. In this case, he chose the former, and under the principle of tort, he could be compensated for the nominal damages (Sharma, 2017). However, for anticipatory breach, the judges would have to be convinced that Oliver committed an act so malicious and reckless that they give any rational person pause. From the case, Oliver’s actions do not seem to have met that threshold.Conclusion: Based on this analysis, Fred was qualified for specific types of compensation – the punitive compensation is not one of them.
References
McGarry, C., & Kent, J. (2017, April 4). What are my options if the other party is not honouring
our contract | Lexology. Retrieved from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fd81548c-bab7-4091-b77c-f7d0817fcc59
Sharma, M. (2017, December). 5 general principles of Tort law. Retrieved from
http://www.pathlegal.in/5-General-principles-of-Tort-law-blog-1468194
Steinberger, J. (2007, February). Is This Contract Valid? Retrieved from
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/175238