LS 311 Unit 5: CARDWARE vs Shazam Industries

Running head: Memorandum of Shazam Clothing vs CARDWARE Inc.

CARDWARE vs Shazam Industries

Tate Brandon

LS 311

DATE:

TO: P. Strami, and Hammond, Attorneys at Law

FROM:

RE: Contract issues between client Sonya vs Camille/CARDWARE

Sonya is the owner and lead seamstress for the Shazam Clothing Industries. Sonya has worked with Camille the business consultant and mother of CEO for CARDWARE, Camille worked with Sonya before and had no issues came about. Typically, Camille paid Sonya with 25% down payment for the orders, however this time Sonya was distracted and did not get the 25% during the visit from Camille. During the meeting Camille placed an order for 500 sweaters with match hats. In the design process each sweater was to have a number and Candie Cardigan’s signature on a label sewn onto the bottom right side of the sweater. The hats would have the same label with matching number to its sweater but sewn on the right side of the turned-up hat cuff. Sonya agreed to make each set for $100. Camille wrote down which yarn type she wanted and what exact dye lots to be used in the process. Sonya then completed the production of all 500 sweater and hat sets to the specification provided and presented Camille with the payment with the words “Payment Due Upon Receipt” written below. Camille then changed her mind about the sweaters and hats, deciding that it would not be as profitable as she originally anticipated and would not pay. Sonya came to P.Strami, and Hammond Attorneys at Law office looking for any recourse she has to collect the amount in full for the services she had provided.

All parties had an agreement to what services were to be provided. Camille offered to pay $100 per sweater and hat set. And Sonya had agreed to make the sweater and hats with the yarn type and dye lots that Camille had written down. Camille had come to Sonya with an offer and Sonya had accepted the offer, thus creating an agreement between the two parties (Dugger, 2018).

It would be hard for Sonya to bring a successful case against CARDWARE. Camille while being a business consultant did not have the authority on behalf of CARDWARE to create a contract, and no member of CARDWARE was included in the contract process between Camille and Sonya (Lande, n.d.). In the past with Camille and Sonya the 25% down payment was transferred from Camille and CARDWARE to Sonya thus creating a contract between the two companies, however this time it did not happen.

In conclusion, Sonya and Camille had all the six elements of a contract. An offer, an acceptance, a legal purpose, mutual assent, consideration and both parties were competent (Dugger, 2018). Sonya had all these elements with Camille, but none of these with CARDWARE even though Candie Cardigan’s signature was on the label. It would not be recommended that Sonya pursue CARDWARE in court for damages, because CARDWARE was not involved or represented in the agreement that took place between Camille and Sonya. It is recommended that Sonya pursue damages against Camille for violation of the contact.

Reference

Dugger, A. P. (2018). Certainty of Terms: Definition and Terminology. Retrieved December 16, 2019, from https://study.com/academy/lesson/certainty-of-terms-definition-and-terminology.html.

Lande, S. (n.d.). This Is What Being a Management Consultant Actually Means. Retrieved December 16, 2019, from https://www.themuse.com/advice/this-is-what-being-a-management-consultant-actually-means.