Let’s say I text someone that I will take them to dinner and I will take them anywhere they want, my treat.
They say great! They want to go to some restaurant in Tokyo (we are in Chicago).
Have I committed to flying them to Tokyo for that meal?
We can even pull it closer to home. Suppose they pick the most expensive place in Chicago which is about $500/person (give or take a little). Am I legally on the hook for that?
*Not sure if a text message is written or verbal…I mean, obviously it is written but it is used as though you were speaking to someone…not sure what the law thinks of that.
Legally, a contract is anything that has consideration for both parties, and is agreed to by both parties (with some other details, like it must be for something legal). In your example, there’s no consideration for you, and so there’s no contract.
Contracts are creatures of law. One of the most fundamental creatures. As such different legal traditions and different countries have different answers to “what is a contract?”
Here’s a 10 cent tour for common law countries including the USA:
At the base you need offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent. Your scenario has no consideration, so is not a contract. Game over. Both parties need to agree to do something beneficial for the other. You agreed to buy, they agreed to ???
The real lawyers can do a much nicer job than I can. But the fact that one wiki paragraph refers you to a dozen different articles for more details on every aspect of the situation suggests it’s not a simple area when you really dig out your magnifying glass.
I’d also point out that an offer of almost limitless liability like you made is poor negotiating form.
In most circumstances, whether the contract is written or oral makes no difference. There are relatively few contracts that are required to be in written form — a contract for the sale of land is the principal example of one that does have to be evidenced in writing.
If writing isn’t required then, as LSLGuy says, what you need is offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations. A simple promise of a meal or other treat, even after acceptance, usually fails because there is no consideration, and also no intention to create legal relations.
Now, if you had said “I’ll take you to dinner anywhere you want, if you give me a back rub when we get home”, and she said “Done, I’ll take Chez Espensiv”, then that would, technically speaking, be a contract. You probably wouldn’t have much luck getting a court to enforce it, but technically, it is.
And while a contract can be valid without being written, an oral contract is naturally much more difficult to enforce, because either party could just say “What? No, I never agreed to that”, and how could a court prove otherwise?
ETA: that’s twice I started typing first and @Chronos’ much greater brevity (or typing speed or both) beat me to the very same point. Curses; foiled again!
True. Although now that we know a GF’s birthday is involved we do get to mutual consideration. As in:
I, the party of the first part hereby promise to take you, the party of the second part, to the eatery of your choice without limitation whatsoever. And you, the party of the second part, promise to boff my, the party of the first part’s, brains out afterwards for as long as either of us are capable of movement.
Now we have mutual consideration and we’re getting closer to a contract. Just need acceptance and intent.
'Zactly. My late first wife was a contracts attorney. As she put it:
A written contract doesn’t turn a dishonest counterparty honest. But it sure improves their memory!
I would argue that in such a case, the contract fails for lack of intention to create legal relations. Not every agreement is a contract; people can form an agreement (even with consideration, ie exchange of promises) on a purely social level without intending to make it enforceable in law. I’d argue that this is the case in your example, but as always in law, you might argue differently.
I don’t think this example would be as an oral or verbal agreement since the you did it over text. I was under the impression that an oral agreement is one in which the agreement is just made verbally and is not recorded.
The example might be more contract in nature if you phrased it as “Do XYZ for me and I’ll take you to dinner anywhere you want”. With the example in the OP, the other person is out nothing if you refuse to take them to dinner. But if the person does XYZ for you and then asks to be flown to Tokyo, it would be a more complicated situation. They have fulfilled their part of the agreement and have asked you to fulfill yours. I would think the court would take into consideration the value of XYZ compared to the dinner and see if they were roughly equivalent. So if you ask for a ride to the mechanic and they want their dinner to be in Tokyo, I would expect the court to say that’s unreasonable. But if they ask for dinner at an appropriate restaurant compared to the value of the ride, I would expect the court would say they are entitled to that (or the value thereof).
When contracts are required to be in writing for them to be valid -
Any promises made in connection with marriage, including such gifts as an engagement ring.
Contracts that cannot be completed in less than one year.
Contracts for the sale of land—leases need not be covered unless they are for a year or more.
Promises to pay an estate’s debt from the personal funds of the executor. However, promises to pay such debt from the estate’s funds are not subject to the statute of frauds.
Contracts for the sale of goods above a specific dollar amount, typically $500.
A contract in which one person promises to pay the debt of another person is considered a surety and is subject to the statute of frauds.
I don’t think it ever forms a contract. The terms of both sides of the contract have to be clear and agreed to. So courts would not consider the question at all. You already received XYZ, and it’s totally up to you if you want to reciprocate in any way. The mechanic has no legal recourse.
Just need acceptance and intent.