Inthis case study, a buyer (Jud) offered the seller (Krauses) a pricethat was lesser than the estimated market price of a 10 acre piece ofland and signed s contract for the transaction. Courts honorcontracts that has been reached and signed by two or more competentparties, which means that Krauses cannot avoid the contract afterlearning that Jud offered them a lower price than the market price.Some of the elements that make contracts legally binding include theexistence of a lawful offer and its acceptance, a lawfulconsideration, free consent, the existence of a lawful object,certainty of meaning, and the possibility of performance among otherfeatures (Kumar, 2014). It is therefore evident that the contractsigned by Jud is legally binding and Krauses cannot avoid it later,since it has all the qualities of a legally binding contract. UnlessKrauses proves that he was mentally unstable or fraud committed byJud, the contract remains valid and enforceable.
Meetingof minds is among the key determinants of the validity of a contract.This means that parties to a given contract should understand itsterms in the same sense (Schofield, 2014). To this end, if Jud wrotea different amount from what he stated verbally, it means thatcontract lost the element of a meeting of minds. However, Jud needsto prove that the typed amount was a mistake. In addition, a validcontract should have an offer that is accepted by both parties andunderstood as part of the key terms of the contract. In this case,the promised amount differs from the written amount, which means thatthe contract does not meet the intents of the parties to thecontract. Therefore, Jud cannot be held to the amount that was typedas long is it is proven that it was a mistake.
Kumar,S. (2014). Essential elements of a valid contract. BusinessLaw.Retrieved July 9, 2015, fromhttp://shivamlawworld.blogspot.com/2012/02/essential-elements-of-valid-contract.html
Schofield,H. (2014). The demise of the meeting of the minds in contract law.ABA.Retrieved July 9, 2015, fromhttp://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/spring2014-0614-demise-meeting-of-minds-contract-law.html