Question

Danuta Swinton was unhappy with a very large maple tree in her front yard. She therefore contacted West End Tree Service (WETS) to discuss the problem. At the end of their discussion, WETS’s manager wrote up a document, entitled "Tree Removal," that provided an estimated price of $1,950. That price was broken down into three elements: $950 to cut down the tree, $800 to remove the logs and debris, and $200 for a city permit. The work could not be done without the permit. During the same meeting, Danuta signed an application for a tree removal permit. Acting on Danuta’s behalf, WETS sent the application to the city along with a cheque for $200. Two weeks later, after the city had issued the permit, WETS went to Danuta’s house during the middle of the day, cut down the tree, and hauled it away. When she returned home from work that evening, however, Danuta paid $200 for the permit, but refused to pay anything more. She has persuaded the court that she never actually asked WETS to do anything more than obtain the permit, and that she never thought that they had a contract to actually perform the work. In contrast, WETS has explained that it would never simply obtain a permit on behalf of a customer. Unless it gets paid to actually remove a tree, the job is not worth the hassle. All of WETS’s competitors have the same policy.

Does Danuta have to pay for WETS’s services in removing the tree? Did the parties have a contract?

Answer 1

Whether Danuta Swinton must pay for WETS's tree removal services depends on the existence of a contract, which is questioned due to a lack of clear acceptance of the service offer. An implied contract may be argued by WETS based on industry standard and prior cost breakdown discussion, leaving the determination of payment obligations.

Step-by-step explanation:

The issue at hand involves assessing whether Danuta Swinton must pay for the tree removal services provided by West End Tree Service (WETS) and whether a contract existed between the two parties. A contract is a legally binding agreement which can be formed through a clear offer, acceptance, and consideration. While WETS has a reasonable belief that a service was impliedly requested when Danuta signed the application for a tree removal permit and discussed the price estimate, Danuta has convinced the court that she only intended to apply for the permit. Without a clear acceptance by Danuta to the terms provided by WETS for the tree removal work, the formation of a binding contract is contentious.

If Danuta can prove that no agreement was reached concerning the actual tree removal, legally she may not be required to pay for the services. However, given that WETS completed the work based on an industry standard practice and a prior discussion on the cost breakdown, WETS may argue the existence of an implied contract. The resolution may depend on the court's interpretation of these actions as implied acceptance. This scenario is a classic example of the importance of clarity in contract formation and understanding implied consent within the scope of business transactions.