Agreement
The terms of the agreement were laid as follows:
Cooks was entitled to a bonus payment of 3% aside from her regular salary. The bonus was to come from profits resulting from the sales of the restaurant that she helped to set up.
In the event that Cooks was terminated from her job, she was not supposed to engage in any business that competed with RRG either directly or indirectly. She was not supposed to be an employee, stakeholder, or owner of such a business.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Consideration
The only consideration that was put on paper was that Cooks was entitled to the 3% bonus payment upon the successful design of the menu to be used by the new RRG concept restaurant. RRG’s consideration was that they get the design that they will use for their new concept from Cooks.
On the first contract signed when Cooks got employed, no considerations were laid in the case that any of the parties breached the contract.
Capacity
Both parties seemed to be in perfect capacities to put ink on paper when they were signing the contracts. Cooks seems to be of sound mind. Other things that should be checked on include sanity, bankruptcy, and drug influence.
From the analysis of this case, Cooks deserves to be paid her bonus. To begin with, the agreement concerning the bonus was signed long after the agreement concerning her termination was signed. The two contracts seem to be independent of each other as there is arguably no clause that binds them. This means that Cooks was entitled to her 3% bonus regardless of whether she was employed or not. The bone of contention may only creep in when the issue as to whether Cooks deserves to keep her business or not comes up. It is, however, safe to say that this may be argued out and that there is still a chance that Cooks may be able to keep her business.
