A Secret Recipe, Essay Example

The case in question involves the payment of a bill for the receipt of a secret recipe. The recipe was provided to the defendant in this matter by an unusual method and under unusual circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe, as plaintiff’s counsel that there was a valid contract formed in this case and that the defendant is obligated, under the circumstances, to pay the demanded contract price.

The client, in this case, is a high quality restaurant. As such, it has a number of recipes that are a trademark of the business and are highly protected by the owners. Protecting such recipes is important to the business’ success and to allow such recipes to circulate could have disastrous effects on the continued viability of the business (Lawrence). The importance of this recipe was demonstrated by the actions and reactions of the waiter on the night that the customer/ defendant requested the recipe. The waiter, as an employee, of the restaurant made it very clear to the defendant that the recipe was highly guarded.

The facts in this case are not your typical contract scenario. The case does not involve two parties sitting down at a table ironing out each one’s position. Instead, the instant case involves a customer coming in to the plaintiff’s restaurant and thoroughly enjoying his meal to the point that he feels compelled to ask his waiter for a copy of the recipe for the fish that he has just consumed. The customer enjoyed the meal so much, in fact, that he actually begs the waiter, on his hands and knees, for said recipe. This is an unusual event but not the only unusual event in the scenario. Under what circumstances the recipe is ultimately obtained is at issue as well as the method of delivery. The waiter is the individual delivering the recipe and this brings into question under what authority the waiter was able to provide such recipe and whether or not the customer had a right to rely upon the waiter’s authority. The fact that the customer never personally dealt with the management of the restaurant and never had any discussions regarding what the consideration was to be for providing the recipe raises come concerns regarding whether there was a meeting of the minds but this will be addressed later. The customer’s state of mind is also important. Was the customer under the impression that he was actually receiving something of value or did he believe that he was making a simple request; a simple favor.

The elements of a contract have been well established throughout the history of common law. Offer, acceptance, consideration and a meeting of the minds have been repeated over and over in every contract dispute for years. In the instant case, the elements of a contract are present. These elements may not be present in clearly definable form but they are present nonetheless. In analyzing what occurred in this case one must look at how this matter transpired chronologically. The customer/defendant makes his initial request for the recipe which request is categorically denied by the waiter. The customer is not satisfied with this response and proceeds to actually beg the waiter for the recipe. At this point the waiter disappears and mysteriously comes back later with a sealed envelope containing the recipe which the customer/ defendant accepts. Where, one might ask, is the contract formed?

Up to the point prior to the waiter disappearing after the customer begged for the recipe there is certainly no contract. There is no discussion regarding consideration of any kind. The customer is simply requesting the recipe as a favor. Such request is denied but the situation becomes more complicated once the waiter reappears with the recipe inside the sealed envelope. The customer understands that the restaurant values the recipe. He has been told as much by the waiter and the fact that the waiter advised him that the restaurant does not share its recipes with its customers. So the customer understood from the beginning that if he were to receive the recipe he was receiving something of value. This is further documented by the fact that the customer was intending to leave a large tip for the waiter.

The contract is formed, however, by the facts that occurred at the time that the envelope was delivered. It is clearly stated that the recipe was delivered in a sealed envelope. This indicates a measure of confidentiality and the restaurant’s desire to keep the recipe as protected as possible. Additionally, the inclusion of a price for the purchase of the secret recipe on the customer’s bill indicates that the plaintiff restaurant was not providing the recipe as a personal favor to the customer. Instead, the restaurant was indicating its willingness to sell the recipe to the customer for the exchange of consideration. The restaurant was, in effect, making an offer to the customer to sell him the recipe for the payment of $100. At that point, the customer had the choice of either paying the $100 and thereby accepting the restaurant’s offer or rejecting the offer and returning the envelope. His acceptance of the terms is demonstrated by his accepting the envelope, unsealing the envelope and, one must assume, using the recipe. If the customer was to reject the restaurant’s offer, he could have refused to pay the hundred dollars and leaving the envelope unopened (Harris v. Time, Inc.).

It can certainly be argued that there was no meeting of the minds between these two parties here and that; therefore, there is no contract. The owner of the recipe and the customer never had any conversations regarding any of the elements of the contract and the only contact is the inclusion of the price on the restaurant bill. Yet, this should be sufficient for holding the customer responsible and enough to indicate that a contract was negotiated between the parties. The contract was formulated when the sealed envelope was delivered to the customer with the inclusion of the price of $100 on the customer’s bill. At that point, the offer was tendered by the restaurant and the customer had the right to reject the offer by returning the envelope to the waiter (Klamen v. Genuine Parts Company). The customer did not do so. The customer was fully advised as to the terms of the offer and exercised his acceptance by accepting the envelope and subsequently opening it. There was certainly consideration being provided by both sides. The restaurant was providing the recipe and the customer was to provide payment. Unfortunately, the customer failed to provide his portion of the consideration and, therefore, breached his portion of the contract.

The customer will surely argue that he believed that the restaurant was proving the recipe as a favor and, based on the facts of the case, this could be considered a viable argument up to the point that the selling price was included on the bill. Up to that point the authority of the waiter to provide the recipe is clearly at issue but the inclusion of the $100 fee on the actual restaurant bill removes this as a viable argument. Including the $100 fee on the bill not only provides evidence that a contract offer is being made it also serves to ratify the authority of the waiter to represent the restaurant on this matter. It removes any question as to the apparent authority of the waiter and removes this case from being a one where the waiter is dealing on his one and establishes it as a legitimate arms length contract negotiation.

Although the facts in the case are unusual they clearly establish that there was a contract between the parties and that the customer/defendant should be obligated to pay the $100 fee for the receipt of the recipe. The recipe had significant value and it was not freely provided. The customer was aware that the restaurant expected to be compensated for the receipt of the recipe and he had a choice to make when he received his bill whether or not to accept the terms of the contract being offered by the restaurant. He could have simply not paid the fee and left the envelope unopened. He failed to do either and, thereby, exercised his acceptance of the restaurant’s offer. The customer has the benefit of his bargain in the form of the recipe and he should be obligated to fulfill his end of the deal by paying the stated consideration of the $100.

Works Cited

Harris v. Time, Inc. No. 191 Cal. App. 3d 449. California Court of Appeals. 1987.

Klamen v. Genuine Parts Company. No. 848 S.W. 2d 38. Missouri Court of Appeals. 1993.

Lawrence, Meredith G. “Edible Plagiarism: Reconsidering Recipe Copyright in the Digital Age.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law (2011): 187 – 215.