On May 15, 2013 Dowodu and Sitro signed a contract under which the former would purchase the latter's Jersey number for a predetermined sum of money. With his former football club, the "Tornadoes," where he was given the jersey number 32, Dowodu enjoyed a successful career. When he was transferred, he discovered that Sitro, a player for Dowodu's new club, had already claimed the 32nd spot. In their arrangement, the two stipulated that Sitro would sell the jersey number for $40,000, with the remaining $20,000 to be paid in installments first. The rest was to be paid as follows, ten thousand by the eighth week of the NFL championship and finally, ten thousand before Christmas of 2013. Sitro was later unexpectedly cut from the team, and Dowodu believes that the act is enough to nullify the agreement. He even claims to have discussed with Sitro on the possibility of being cut from the team. To further justify his need to nullify the contract, Dowodu notes that his name was misspelled on the signing which is actually true.
Issue
Before moving on to decide whether or not Dowodu has the right to nullify the contract, it is essential to learn if their agreement can rightly be justified by a contract. In general terms, a contract refers to an agreement between two or more parties that is recognized and hence can be justified in a court of law. The two common forms of contracts UCC and UCL govern the sales of goods and services. The transfer of the jersey number can be classified as a goods transfer since the recipient will actually get the new number imprinted onto his jersey and he will play at the specified position. The printing will be tangible and hence be felt. The overall requirements of an agreement to be termed as a contract include the following; one party must make an offer which the other side should agree to. The promises which the offering party makes must be characterized by substantial legal consideration, the parties must all enter the agreement competently, and finally, the agreement must accomplish some goal. In light of the above-mentioned information, Dowodu and Sitro’s agreement can rightly be considered as a contract since there is an offer (Dowodu offers Sitro 40,000 dollars for the jersey number) consideration. (Dowodu has given up $40,000 for the Jersey number, and Sitro has given up the jersey number for $40,000) and finally acceptance (both parties have signed a written document containing the facts of their agreement. A typical example includes an informal contract where a father and son make an agreement where if the son scores an A in his exams, the father will buy him a smartphone. In this scenario, there is an offer i.e. the father offers to buy his son a smartphone, consideration, the father is willing to give up some portion of his income to buy the son a phone while the son is willing to apply efforts and resources in order to acquire good grades and finally there is agreement where two parties agree to the terms. Dowodu and Sitro’s agreement is hence a contract.
Opinion
Although Dowodu and Sitro’s agreement has all of the makings of a valid contract, it is essential to note down the remaining elements which were later discovered which served to nullify the agreement hence the settlement. Intricate details such as misspelling the name of either one of the parties are enough to nullify a contract since it specifies a different identity. According to my own personal opinion, the contract is invalidated by the typographical error which was later discovered at the end. Dowodu actually has the right to stop paying Sitro due to the negligence displayed of not proofreading the terms and the personal information of the parties involved before moving on to actually agree to the terms. There is, however, a possibility of the contract not being nullified by a typographical error as outlined below
The misspelling of the name does, in fact, have a legal effect on the overall validity of the contract. The error specifies that the contract has been made with another party with a different identity. The court, however, determines that there is no fatal error in misspelling the names of one of the involved parties as long as there is a clear intention as to the party intended. In the above case, there is indeed a clear intention since Dowodu’s name was spelled correctly on the first part of the contract. The contract might not be null after all. On third September 2013, the high court had to judge a case between Liberty Meridian and the Cuddy Group. Liberty Meridian had entered into a contract with Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd (CCEL), which was a dormant company while its original intentions were to enter with Cuddy Demolition and Dismantling Group (CDDL). Liberty limited had mistakenly requested that Cuddy Group, which is the trading name of the group of companies be replaced by CCEL which is a dormant company. The court looked at the background of the case and discovered that there was a marked intention between the intended parties hence the contract was validated.
Conclusion/Summary Paragraph
As per my opinion, I believe that the contract should be nullified based on the fact that the parties failed to proofread all the important details. However, since there was a clear intention to agree to the terms of the contract between the two parties, the court should rightly rule in favor of Sitro. This is in light of the fact that there was no written agreement or evidence to attest to the fact that the two talked about the possibility of Sitro leaving the team. The contract is hence valid, and Dowodu should adhere to the terms.
Bibliography
Blum, Brian A. Contracts : examples & explanations. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2007.
Boundy, Charles. Business contracts handbook. Farnham, Surrey, England Burlington, Vt: Gower Pub, 2010.
Miller, Paul B., and Andrew S. Gold S. Gold. Contract, status, and fiduciary law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
