Sun Deck Defense Essay
Sun Deck Defense
The Attorney had a valid and binding contract with Sun Deck. Period, no more, no less. This is the crux of the matter and I am here to emphasize that fact further. A breach of contract is defined as, “… a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party’s performance” (IMS Expert Services, 2008).
In our case, the binding agreement came in the form of a contract between the Attorney and Sun Deck, where it is stipulated that the former will provide legal services for the latter regarding some complex legal tax matters. The Attorney was not able to finish the job that was required of him, as he stopped representing Sun Deck before the contract expired. As such, this act of not finishing the contract and providing the services as stipulated, qualifies the Attorney to be held liable for a breach of contract.
On the issue regarding the unpaid invoices amounting to $576,282, Sun Deck never indicated that the company would not pay its obligations to the Attorney. Although it may have APPEARED that the company may not pay the said amount, nevertheless, it NEVER said or did anything to this effect. The Attorney jumped to the conclusion that the company would not be able to pay its obligations to him, and he did this on his own volition; Sun Deck never said or made any action that would support the Attorney’s personal conclusion.
Concurrently, the unavailability of the Sun Deck’s principal is also not enough of an indication to attest that the company would not honor it obligations to the Attorney. The Attorney could have easily liaised with the appointed representative in the absence of the principal. In the absence of the said representative, the Attorney could still have opted to communicate with Sun Deck regarding this matter, instead of construing this as an indication of the company’s lack of commitment to its financial obligations.
It is quite understandable for a big company such as Sun Deck to be busy with its other commitments and operational activities. The good Attorney should have known this fact at the onset and understood the situation, instead of jumping to conclusions based on his personal opinion. His decision was clearly not based on solid facts. Sun Deck should not be held at fault if the Attorney chose to act unwittingly based on his judgement alone.
When the Attorney decided to stop rendering service to Sun Deck, despite the existence of a valid and binding contract, he has, in effect, broke his end of the deal in the said agreement. Therefore, it is just proper for the company to declare the Attorney to have shown “an inability to competently represent” Sun Deck and consequently, withhold payment on the outstanding invoices, pending an audit of the Attorney’s billings.
In addition, since the Attorney has yet to perform its end of the deal regarding its agreement with Sun Deck, this all the more reinforces the company’s right to withhold payment, until such time that the stipulations in their contract are fulfilled. To conclude, it is clear that Sun Deck’s claim for breach of contract is valid, while that of the Attorney’s counteraction to be unfounded. The Attorney’s decision to stop rendering his services, inspite being bound to a valid agreement, constitutes a breach of contract, pure and simple.
In addition, the company never made any action or statement that would indicate that it is backing out of its commitment to pay the Attorney his fees. The same goes with the alleged unavailability of the principal, which could have easily been addressed, had the Sun Deck 3 Attorney made the effort to communicate with the people concerned at Sun Deck. The Attorney’s act of jumping to conclusions based merely on personal judgement, makes the company’s position for a breach of contract even more valid.
The breach also justifies any withholdment on the part of Sun Deck regarding the Attorney’s fees. In view of all these, I hope that I’ve made it clear that Sun Deck’s claim for a breach of contract is valid, at the same time establishing the nullity of the Attorney’s counteraction. Therefore, I would like to request for the immediate hearing of Sun Deck’s case and the prompt dismissal of that of the Attorney’s. Thank you. Sun Deck 4 Reference IMS Expert Services. (2008). Example of case studies related to: Breach of Contract. Retrieved November 2, 2008 from http://www. ims- ex