Lambert and Barron’s Case
There are certain promises that are not considered consideration.
· As a business owner or stakeholder, how can you ensure that your contracts are enforceable?
· Think back to the Lambert v. Barron case What should Lambert have done differently?
· Lambert and Barron’s Case
· Question 1: Facts that Support the Position of Lambert that a Contract Existed
· Barron and Lambert had a meeting in Farmerville, and there was a verbal contract. According to the contract, Lambert will provide consulting services to Barron to overcome issues of this contract. The amount that Lambert was to be paid was $3100 monthly for one year (Beringer, 1999). After reviewing the details of the five pending projects, Lambert assisted DMB Inc. to start the arbitration process. He was sent all the relevant documents regarding DMB Inc.’s contract. In December 1999, Barron made a payment of $3100 to Lambert. Lambert had the evidence relating to the bills, and he sent a letter to Barron on the 30th October, 2000 (Beringer, 1999). It was about the payment of the rest of the money for the contract.
· Question 2: Facts that Support Barron’s Position that no Contract Existed
· Barron received the letter from Lambert, and he wrote back. He stated that he was surprised since he had no such contract with Lambert. He said that he only paid £3100 to Lambert since he once reviewed their contract agreement (Beringer, 1999). Additionally, he said that he considered the efforts that Lambert made to travel to Farmerville. It was despite the fact that he organized Lambert’s flights during the round trip. From that time, Barron never contacted Lambert, though he returned some calls.
· Question 3: Whether I agree with the Case’s Outcome
· I agree with the court’s outcome that there was no contract. There was no evidence that the two parties had a mutual agreement on a one year contract. It was alleged that an agreement took place in December 1998, but the first payment to Lambert occurred in December 1999. He then wrote a letter to Barron in October 2000. Hence, he was not expecting a monthly payment from Barron. The court’s arguments look valid and logical. It is hard to believe Lambert’s arguments in this case.
