A contract is a legally binding promise between two or more parties and can be defined as a mutual trust of terms with an exchange of value or gains for all involved. When someone takes back or revokes a contract illegally, then this is referred to as a breach of contract or breach of trust and in this scenario, it seems that there was most definitely a binding contract followed by a breach of contract. In this situation the lessor would be liable for breach of contract and would call for some form of remedies to the lessee. Kevin and Sally entered into a contract the moment that Kevin verbally expressed his need to receive a written acceptance to his offer that was sent via email by the next Friday and the binding portion of the agreement became ironclad when the written response of acceptance to comply with offer was sent by Sally through the United States postal service that Wednesday. Regardless of his call to cancel his offer, Sally was given and offer verbally that would extend through Friday. This verbal offer or verbal agreement is the same as a verbal contract.
Consideration is the exchange of value or an agreement by which both parties exchange mutual promises. Both Kevin and Sally entered into a bilateral contract when they made a promise to receive and exchange mutual values and each is regarded as sufficient consideration for the other. Bilateral contracts will bind both parties in the moment that the parties exchanged promises, as each promise was sufficient consideration of itself. Kevin promised to give Sally the option to buy said vehicle for 3,000.00 and was given an expiration date of that coming Friday to accept or disregard the offer. Sally carried out her part by submitting a written response of acceptance in the mail and this is where the contract was valid. Once the letter was postmarked and the offer still available, then Kevin is liable for breach of contract. Kevin’s breach of contract will have to be satisfied by way of remedy. There are many remedies that can be ordered by the judge. In this situation two may apply depending on how this story ended. First if the new verbal agreement between Kevin and Mr. Millionaire was not executed at the time of the hearing, in other words the title had not been transferred over to Mr. Millionaire, then the judge would be able to enforce…