Contracts/Sales What should you do about continuing to do business with Don? Don had involved my 17 year old son into a contract signing that he is not eligible for. This aspect of the contract signing hence contradicts the validity of the contract. One of the factors that are considered for a valid contract is that the partied getting involved in the contract signing be competent. This in reliance to section 10 (1) of the Contract Act 1959: the parties involved in an agreement should be based on the autonomy to consent by competent parties in regard to the law and are not termed to as being void. Competency is based on the ability to being an adult, of sound mind and not against the law to be involved in a contract. Section 11 adds to this stating that he or she should be of age of most of the parties taking part. My son is below the age of getting involved in contract signing that Don and I have been involved in. This would lead me to stop engaging doing business with Don. Based on the elements of a binding contract, my 17 year old son who is a delivery person is deemed by law to be unfit; he is termed to as lacking contractual capacity (It slaw, 2012). He is not part of the competent parties who are to be engaged in the agreement. Considering that Don used an under aged person to put in writing a duty of good faith and dealing he has legally practiced fraud in execution (Goldstein, 2011). This is an unlawful act based on law. Certain aspects of the application of in good faith and fair dealings may not come into application when looking at the factors that affect it. For meeting of the action in good faith and fair dealings, there are a number of aspects that are supposed to be met before it is claimed (justia, 2011). First the parties are supposed to have entered into a contract which was undertaken by the two parties, secondly, that all of the parties involved should have applied all of the aspects of the contract. That all of the conditions placed in the contract are to be fulfilled. These two clauses were not fulfilled in terms of the payment by Don, this hence calls for the unviability of the in good faith and fair dealings. Spiritually, Don is not a Christian and has just joined in the church by the help of his wife. I on the other hand am a born Christian and based on the Christian teachings, am not to look for the success of one while disregarding my partner. My act of engaging in business with Don and trying to terminate it is an act selfness. If you should elect to stop doing business with Don, what legal causes of action might he bring against your company, what damages or remedies might he seek, and what legal defenses might your company have? In the event I decide to terminate my business with Don, there are varied legal steps that would favor him and disregard mine. Based on the Uniform Commercial Code my supplying of the anti-oxidants products and his buying of the same takes place in good faith (Cornell). This aspect brings into application the clause that Don placed in the agreement calling for the parties concerned to act in good faith. This brings into force the breach of the agreement of good faith and fair dealing. In each and every contract there is an aspect of good faith. Neither of the parties involved is supposed to get involved in activities that would go against the right of the other party to meet its benefits. The second of the law similarly calls on the parties concerned in the agreement dealing in products, in this case the anti-oxidants, to do everything possible to promote the supply of the product. The contract that was signed was a form of a common contract that in addition to involving competent parties, it is similarly calls for the preferable consideration of support for one party (US Legal, 2010). The common contract calls for me to have a prior consideration for Don in any engagement that I am involved in. I am hence not supposed to offer my supply of anti-oxidants to other parts of the country and disregard Don. I am hence bound by the contract to continue supplying to Don. The contract that has been involved by Don and I has no limit to it. This hence calls for the contract to be binding and enforceable. The involvement of work between Don and I still holds for prior times to come. This may be used by Don to restrict me from terminating him from any business operation. The actions that I have taken would be a breach of contract this would lead to Don to be entitled to damages. This damage entitlement may be in the form of money. The court may as well deem it fit to apply the specific performance so as to force the compelling party, me in this case, a contract to undertake the contract as intended (wise geek, 2012). The subject of the contract is special or a step for damages would be the next step to resolve it. Based on the promissory estoppel, which is a law that is applied by the courts to put onto force the promises that are made by two parties engaged in a contract. The court would stop one party from going back on a promise (law teacher, 2012). The contract engaged by Don and I are a form of promise that both of us are supposed to follow, going back on it would lead to I suffering the consequences of the law. This relates to custom and practice, where both of us engage in practices that are termed to as a custom but are not included in the contract. Don is hence bound to be the beneficiary with this law coming into play. References Cornell. (n.d.). Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from Legal Information Institute: Goldstein, J. M. (2011). Franchisor Fraud Difficult To Prove. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from Goldstein: itslaw. (2012). Minors’ Capacity To Contract. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from justia. (2011). 325. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing “ Essential Factual Elements. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI): lawteacher. (2012). Promissory estoppel. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from USLegal. (2010). Common Contract Questions & FAQ. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from wisegeek. (2012). What Is an Implied Contract? Retrieved June 22, 2012, from