Contract law is a very established area

Contract law is a very established area

Contract law is a very established area

Contract Law

Contract law is a very established area of jurisprudence even though the contents of the contract might seem simple. The agreement entails an offer, acceptance of the proposal and consideration of the offer.  The three main elements of offers at common law are communication, commitment, and definite terms. In the case study of Al Moufid Co, the company communicated to Nadia about the contract, there was a commitment in writing, and both parties were specific on the times when Nadia would be free, and therefore the contract is valid and binding, and Nadia deserves compensation for the expenses incurred.

The promise made by Al Moufid Co to Nadia to have a two-hour lunch break is binding because both parties signed a contract containing all the provisions of the agreement. For the contract to be valid, the offeror must communicate to the offeree. The communication can either be in writing or verbal. The offeror is considered to be committed to the offer if he or she intended to be bound by the offer. Furthermore, an offer is valid if it is specific and clear in its terms. Nadia explains to Al Moufid Co. that she will need a more extended lunch break to attend to her sick mum. In return, she promises to report to work earlier to compensate for the time lost during the lunch break. After the communication, the two parties commit to the offer by signing the contract, and the offer is definite about a more extended break which the offeree is to compensate by reporting to work early. Therefore, the agreement is binding since it contains all the elements of a valid offer.

The promise made by Al Moufid to Nadia allowing her not to work on Saturdays is not binding since it lacks the element of commitment. The company agreed to be flexible with her concerning her working days even though it was not in the signed contract provisions. Other than the communication, the promise is specifically concerning Saturdays which make the offer definite. However, the company does not show any element of commitment while making the promise. For a promise to be valid, it must contain all the three components of a legitimate offer. Given that the element of commitment is missing then the promise concerning her Saturday absence is not binding.

Nadia is entitled to receive compensation for the expenses she incurred as a result of relying on the Al Moufid Co promise should the court invoke promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel provides that a party should obtain compensation for any losses that occur as a result of a promise made even if the parties did not sign a legal contract. The company promised Nadia to be flexible with her regarding her working on Saturday, but they signed no contract nor showed an intention to commit to the promise. Relying upon the promise, she paid the annual registration fees for her children, paid the children’s driver and declined a job offer from another firm. With the promissory estoppels, the company would compensate Nadia given that the company made the promise, and Nadia relied upon the promise and incurred substantial expenses. In that case, the company would either pay Nadia or fulfill the promise.

In the case study, the promise made for the two-hour lunch break is binding, but the promise of being flexible regarding Nadia’s Saturday work schedule is not binding. However, she is entitled to compensation given that she incurred expenses as a result of relying on the promise.

Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

The United States made history by amending the Family First Prevention Services Act as the policy not only considers the welfare of children, who are the future of the nation but also enhances unity among family members. The reform amended Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the social security act to child welfare policies. It intends to improve the children welfare programs countrywide by offering services to families who risk entering foster care. The Federal government has given the mandate to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide further directions on how to implement the Family First policy.

The manner and environment in which children grow up influences the character of the children in their adulthood. Children have a right to stay with their family members where they can receive special attention. When children grow in foster care families, they likely to have traumatic experiences as a result of the restrictions put in place in foster care homes. The new bill will allow reimbursement for substance abuse treatment, offer mental health services, and train parents to have excellent parenting skills and hence reduce the probability of children from joining foster care. In the unavoidable situation of children entering foster care or those who are already in foster care, it aims to improve the well-being of the children by offering special needs and ensuring that they grow up in an environment with a family-like setting.

The federal government should amend the law further to ensure states explore all possible alternatives before placing a child in foster care. It should also eliminate the use of congregate care for children and instead sensitise the different states on the importance of establishing foster family homes. The federal government should further ensure strictness on the period within which a state is allowed to keep a child in foster care as it explores alternatives.

References

KILLETT, S. (2018, November 8). Implement the Family First Prevention Services Act. New York Amsterdam News, p. 12.