Seattle Shoestring Sales, Inc. arranged to sell shoestrings to Victory, Inc., a tennis shoe manufacturer. According to the terms of the deal, Seattle Shoestring Sales committed to sell Victory whatever number of shoestrings it will produce next year, at seventy-five cents per pair. Since entering into their agreement, the price of cotton has skyrocketed five hundred percent. To produce shoestrings, Seattle Shoestring Sales’ cost alone will be approximately $1.50 per pair. Seattle Shoestring Sales has informed Victory that it cannot and will not honor the deal. Required:
a. Is there an enforceable contract between Seattle Shoestring Sales, Inc. and Victory, Inc.?
b. Is the failure to include a quantity term in the agreement fatal to its enforceability?
c. What about the fact that the price of cotton dramatically increased after the companies reached their agreement?
d. Should a court or other arbiter increase the per-pair contract price to account for the increase in the price of cotton, and then enforce the agreement?

(a) Enforceable contract is a contract that is valid. but it cannot be forced by the court. the contract designed by Seattle Shoestring Sales Incorporation and Victory, Incorporation was valid

(b)For the agreement, Seattle Shoestring Sales is not liable to sell any specific amount.

(c)The fact that price of cotton went higher would also be considered by the court.

(d) The court or arbitrator cannot impose the contract after increasing the per-pair contract price to account for the increase in price of cotton, due to the mentioned deliberation.

Explanation:

Solution

(a)Enforceable contract is a contract that is correct. but it cannot be forced by the court.

The contract entered by Seattle Shoestring Sales, Incorporation and Victory, Incorporation was correct.

So, the consideration of the agreement would restrict the court from resisting the agreement if Seattle Shoestring Sales denies fulfilling its promise.

The main reason behind this is that in the terms of agreement specific quantity of was not stated.

(b)As per the agreement, Seattle Shoestring Sales is not liable to sell any specific amount.

(c)The fact that price of cotton dramatically increased would also be considered by the court.

(d)The court or arbitrator cannot enforce the contract after increasing the per-pair contract price to account for the increase in price of cotton, due to the mentioned consideration.  

12.4%

Step-by-step explanation:

The results from the random sample counts 124 from a total of 1000 people that wear contact lenses. This means is the percentageof the people in the sample that wear contact lenses.Because it is a random sample, it is suppose to reflect the behavior of the total population. Then we can expect or predict  similar percentage of Americans wearing contact lenses (12.4%).