Is a customer legally required to pay for current services when (1) the customer paid for previously rendered services based on customary business transactions but (2) failed to pay for the current services because the current services were not requested at the time they were performed? (This is the specific topic to be written on in the form of a question. I could not fit in it in the correct space above)
OUTLINE OF PAPER
Project research paper must include the following specific headings and content:
Put the topic above topic in this section. The topic will identify the legal and business question that will be addressed in the paper. No other information should be included in this section.
Include all facts that should be considered in reaching a sound business judgment on the issue. Place research and any introductory material in this section.
Options and Analysis:
This section should state three possible alternatives that a business might take regarding the legal and business question/problem being discussed. The section must analyze each alternative, considering the legal and business (financial/economic/human resource etc.) aspects.
Identifies the best alternative. Must include a brief explanation of why it is the best option/alternative.
If possible, please include some of the suggestions below including the reference if it relates to the content.
(1)Customer and business previous engage in a contract through common law
(2)Based on previously rendered service, business acted based on rational expectations
(3)Customer failed to clarify expectation or terminate service before current one was performed.
(1)Customer could pay for services since it was given in the same context as previous services.
(2) Business cold file for a common law case that reflect a breach which constitute a tort.
(3)Parties involved could revise agreement and make considerations, so that the issue does not become reoccurring since the business did not verify the service was needed.
Priel, D. (2014). Tort law for cynics. The Modern Law Review, 77(5), 703-731. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12087