Case: Can Cindy Sue Dark?

PART II
Introduction
The consequent issue regarding this part of the case is the lack of a presence of a legal contract. The question lies upon whether Dark is entitled to pay the maintenance amount of $100 per week to Cindy as agreed upon. More specifically, the case addresses the issue of whether Dark is bound by a possibly existent contract that is, Cindy and Dark have agreed upon the consideration of payment of maintenance and their joint credit card account, respectively.
Issue: Can Cindy sue Dark?
Elements and Analysis of Contract
According to the case, Dark and Cindy were under a simple bilateral contract. It is the exchange of promises that creates the enforceable contract. Both the parties are assumed to have obligations.
1. Offer–
Certainty- It should be clearly stated/worded and that its key important parts have specific details. If the agreement is not complete or uncertain it is considered to be void contract (Radan, 2009). Since Dark and Cindy were yet legally married, the verbal agreement between them regarding their respective payments was not made specific, detailed, or clearly mentioned by both the parties to carry forward the contract. Thus it’s undoubtedly a void contract. Assuming that if they filed for a divorce, the contract itself would be stating the specific details of compensation that both parties had to adhere to and if that wouldn’t have been followed Cindy could sue Dark.
6. Capacity- A sane normal person has full contractual capacity to make a contract, certain individuals have the potential to understand what it is that they are entering into. Lack of capacity leads to exploitation. (Julie Clarke, 2013). Dark and Cindy are sober adults who know and understand their separation period by agreeing on terms set by themselves. Yet, there is no such contract existing between them as it was not made legal. With an assumption that Dark was bankrupt, the verdict is
Hence, the court looks into aspects such a language, context, conduct of the particular agreement as well as the environment the parties were present in, ultimately allowing them to reach a profound judgment. Concentrating on the term ‘separated’ and due to the lack of information from our case, assumptions have been made in two scenarios. In both scenarios, the court would highlight the exceptions to the rule of legal relations. Under scenario one, it is assumed the word separated implies the physical separation of Cindy and Dark and not a legal division. This means that the couple has not filed for a divorce.
However, the court would make exceptions based on the conduct, language and environment of the agreement, it can be said that there is a possibility of them reuniting as they were not serious to begin with. If seriousness were predominant, it would allow them to be divorced, which is not applicable under this assumption. Therefore, the court would hold that there was no intention to create legal relations and hence, Dark is not entitled to pay Cindy. Under scenario two, ‘separated’ is presumed to be legal, that is, the couple has either undergone a divorce or is in the process of doing