Facts of the case
This case involves Starfury Inc. and Ravyn. The latter had developed Zoe, a robot that could teach Zumba, perform CPR and possessed social skills. The two parties held discussions about purchasing Zoe for $50 million. In addition, Ravyn requested a one-off payment of $50,000. After receiving no reply to this offer, Ravyn lowered the price to $30 million and supplied Starfury with such materials as Zoe’s retreat schedules, videos that captured the various functions that Zoe could perform and the skills that the robot possessed. There was no reply from Starfury. Upon receiving the items from Ravyn, Starfury approached Cyborg 4 U and contracted it to create another robot that was similar to Zoe. This new robot was able to conduct Zumba classes, retreats and perform CPR. However, unlike Zoe which could engage in social interactions, the robot that Cyborg 4U created lack any social skills. Starfury provided Cyborg 4 U with all the materials that they had received from Ravyn. Now, Ravyn is suing Starfury arguing breach of an implied contract.
Issue
Three issues are before the Los Angeles Superior Court. One, is there an implied contract between Ravyn and Starfury Inc.? Two, do the actions of Starfury amount to a breach of this contract? Three, what remedies, if any, should be awarded to Ravyn?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rule
To resolve the three issues above, the court needs to apply various elements of contract law. For the first issue, the court should assess whether the agreement between Ravyn and Starfury satisfies the criterion for an implied contract. Comparing the actions of Starfury to the provisions of contract law on breaches should allow the court to resolve the second issue. Contract law also stipulates the remedies that should be awarded to the plaintiff. This should be applied to the third issue.
Application
Contract law outlines a number of conditions that must be met for an agreement to be considered an implied contract. The main elements of an implied contract are intent to promise and mutual agreement (Helewitz, 2007). These elements can further be split into three conditions. One of the conditions is that the plaintiff must have supplied the defendant with a product or service. The second condition states that the plaintiff must have a reasonable expectation of payment for the service or product. This condition also requires that the defendant should have understood that they are required to pay for the product or service. The last requirement is that the defendant must have had the opportunity to either accept or reject the product or service. An analysis of the case reveals that all the three conditions were met. Ravyn supplied Starfury with Zoe, the schedules and videos. In fact, Starfury forwarded these materials to Cyborg 4 U which used the materials to create a replica of Zoe. The second condition is also satisfied. Ravyn made it clear that she expected payment for Zoe and the other materials. She quoted a price of $30 million but received no response from Starfury. Starfury had numerous opportunities to reject Ravyn’s offer. For example, Starfury had two weeks between receiving Ravyn’s offer and deciding to approach Cyborg 4 U. Instead of rejecting Ravyn’s offer, Starfury chose to use her materials to create another robot through collaboration with Cyborg 4 U.
Contract law identifies the actions and circumstances that amount to a contract breach. When a party fails to fulfill their obligations as outlined in the contract, they are said to have breached the contract (Rowan, 2012). The implied contract between Ravyn and Starfury imposed on the latter the obligation of making payment for the robot and other materials that the former supplied. Starfury’s failure to pay means that the company breached the contract. The company should therefore pay remedies to Ravyn. Remedies are awarded to parties to a contract who have incurred loss or suffered harm as a result of a breach of the contract.
Conclusion
It has been established above that there was an implied contract and that Starfury is in breach of the contract. It has also been determined that Ravyn is owed remedies. The following is the ruling of the court:
Having determined that there was an implied contract between Ravyn and Starfury, the court finds that Starfury’s refusal to pay for Zoe, the schedules and the videos that Ravyn supplied amount to a breach. The court therefore orders that Starfury should perform its duties as stipulated in the contract; it must purchase Zoe for $30 million.
References
Helewitz, J. A. (2007). Basic Contract Law for Paralegals. Aspen Publishers.
Rowan, S. (2012). Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Analysis of the Protection
Of Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
