Reference no: EM131624760

1st person: Hi I'm Vivian and I am the one of the defendants for the Chabot To Go Case.

As you can see, there was an oral contract made between the students who were involve in the Chabot To Go project business plan and two instructors. The instructors did not agree with their plan but gave them an A on the project if they will receive free food and the students agreed. To create a legal contract between two parties, you need an agreement, legal object, consideration, and capacity. A consideration was given when the instructors gave them an A on the project if they get free food and the agreement was when the students says yes. When the instructors came to get their free food two years later once the project launch became a success, we did not give it to them since the contract was not enforce. Both agreement and the contract was legal but if there is no written contract, it is hard to prove that there was a contract made between the students and the instructors especially since two years have pass since they made an oral agreement. The instructors should have played fair between all the students instead of being unfair and giving the students an undeserving grade to receive something back when other students who have had better ideas while receiving mediocre grades. Thus, the students are not the one to blame but the instructors who were involve.

2nd person: There are a couple of reasons why us, the students, should not owe the entrepreneurship instructors any free food. The verbal contract between us is unenforceable and invalid.

Giving a good grade out in exchange for personal favors is not only against school policies, but it is also illegal. The instructors even went the length to hire a lawyer to make this contract enforceable. This means that the instructors are openly admitting to giving out a good grade for free food. This should already set off beeping red lights in your mind because this contract does not have the legal capacity to be enforced. Since giving out a good grade for personal favors is illegal, the contract is voidable.

If legal capacity is not enough to win the case, another way the students can win this case is bringing up the statute of frauds. Chabot To Go was created two years after the agreement was created, which means it would fall under the statute of frauds because it was not performed within a year. This means that their agreement would have had to be in writing to be valid.

We are very confident that we will be able to win this case in court.

Please help me reply to these two posts! The topic is about discrimination based on race in the workplace.