Preliminary friendly conversation that was not agreedPreliminary friendly conversation that was not agreed

Preliminary
research on Sonya vs Camille

From: Jacob
Natrigo

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

To: Attorney
Strami

Date: December 18th,
2017

Subject: Preliminary
findings in Sonya’s fraud case

After hearing the
entire story from Sonya, it seems to be containing aspects that may be deemed
illegal is her business agreement with Camille an Cardware Consultant. The following facts were found to hold irregularities and compliance issues that go
against the existing law. The entire agreement was made in an informal method, mostly in a friendly conversation that was not agreed upon by the cardware consultant Camille. Also, no evidence can
be found that any intermediary or external consultant was used.

It was found that
the defendant and plaintiff had a professional
relationship before the agreement in question. Miss Camille has a vast network
of clothing manufacturing professionals, it can be said that the plate and the
defendant had worked together on past clothing orders.

The day in
question Camille met Sonya to discuss the order for 500 sweaters. Sonya is the
Head seamstress for the clothing manufacturing company Shazam industries. Sonya
is also the manager of the clothing maker. Camille gave Sonya her verbal order
for the sweaters which were to be hot pink with other industry-specific fabrications.  The discussion between the two parties was
never recorded and did not have any written documentation besides the kind of
yarn that was to be used. This was also done while Camille was dealing with a third
party on the phone. It can be said that the order was more assumed then
requested. To confirm there is no documentation that is immiscible to the court
for evidence. (e-articles, 2012)

Since the only
documentation that was summited was a bill for labor
and the finished product. Sonya has nothing to prove that she was contracted
for such work. To be legally contracted Sonya must have had a written order
from Camille or at least signed by Camille that stated Camille wanted to use
Shazam to manufacture the sweater and hat combo. On this document should have
been the outline for the order in question. For example, a number of units, color, materials type and
price for materials and manufacturing cost. Without this, there is no legally binding contract. (Miller, Rodgers 2013).

 The most detrimental piece to Miss Sonya’s
testimony is that there is no written proof of the order for the 500sweaters
and hats. The closest piece of evidence
that is close to a contract is a small piece of paper with a type of yarn
written on it. This was obtained while the defendant was distracted by a phone call. As we know this does not
qualify as a legally binding contract or order. The paper can be used as proof of Miss Sonya’s proof that the meeting took
place and that they discussed materials for the presumed order. In addition to
lack of proof, Sonya was not given a down
payment which intern make it hard to prove this was a ligament order. It is
understandable that the two parties have worked together in the past without incident.
This being understood we can see how this misunderstanding can happen.

 An example of this case can be seen in, Felthouse v Bindley (1862 EWHC CP J35). In
this ruling, a man made an offer to
purchase his uncles horse. He said that
he told his uncle that if his uncle did not give him an answer by the weekend he would consider the horse his. This did
not hold up to the judge’s decision. The judge’s
ruling was, in this case, the contractual acknowledgment could not be abated from
the uncle’s refusal to answer his nephew. The similarities can be seen in this
case. Sonya cannot demand payment when
she was never given a firm order.

In conclusion, the
following contractual properties should be met. For the case in question, the two parties should agree upon Terms,
Price, Services, Goods. For Sonya case,
she is lacking crucial evidence proving she is owed the allotted sum in which
she has billed Cardware. If this lawsuit
is to be brought to the court more research was being done in Cardwares dealing to see if similar accusations
have been made towards Cardware. It may
be a phone that Cardware has done such thing in the past. In that case, it can be brought up as evidence in our current
case.