Store Vs. Stevens

Marshall Ottina
Store v. Stevens; Quinn v. Stevens
In analyzing the various facets of these two cases, we must first look at the arrangement between Mr. Sam Stevens and the store to determine if, in fact, a legal contract was at hand. The first necessary element in a contract is the agreement. An agreement is reached when one party makes an offer, and the other party accepts. In this case, the store offered to purchase 1,000 units of Mr. Stevens’ product, his verbal assent to the store manager constitutes an acceptance of said offer.

Next, we determine the consideration of the deal. In a bilateral contract such as this, the consideration is a promise. Mr. Stevens promises to deliver his product to the store, who in turn makes a promise to

Had Sam promised the units to the store, knowing the store is relying on them, which they do, and the only way to make it right in the eyes of the law is to enforce that promise, then the elements of promissory estoppel have been established. In all likelihood, by extending an offer to Sam, the store may have passed on another product, and also dedicated resources to marketing and selling Sam’s. Without the products in hand, the store is set up for a loss. Promissory estoppel may be their only recourse for mitigating those

His landlord, Quinn, is seeking to evict Sam for violation of his lease agreement. Quinn is arguing that Sam is in violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and also a breach of conditions of the lease.

By working on an invention that makes a considerable amount of noise, the quality of life of the other tenants is significantly affected. Quinn is obligated to uphold the covenant of quiet enjoyment to all of his tenants. To protect all of his other tenants, and himself Quinn can evict Sam for the noise levels produced by his product. Were he to allow Sam to continue working there, the remaining tenants could sue Quinn for violating their covenants.

Once Sam’s work turned from merely an invention into a marketable, sellable product, he has turned himself from an inventor into a businessman. The terms of his lease specifically prohibit him from running a business from his domicile. These terms are there for the landlord’s protection. As businesses and residences are zoned differently, there are tax and insurance implications involved. A business being run illegally from inside his property puts a considerable amount of liability on Quinn’s