Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building where he has been working on his new invention, a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store that sells safety products wants to sell Sam’s product exclusively. Although Sam and the chain store never signed a contract, Sam verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units.

Sam comes home from work one day and finds two letters in his mailbox. One is an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn, telling him he has to be out of the apartment in 30 days because his barking device has been bothering the other tenants. It also states that Sam was not allowed to conduct a business from his apartment. Sam is angry because he specifically told Quinn that he was working on a new invention, and Quinn had wished him luck. The second letter is from the chain store, demanding that Sam deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

A. Analyze the elements of this case to determine whether a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. Support your response by identifying the elements of a valid contract in your analysis. B. Assume there is not a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Analyze the elements of a quasi-contract and a promissory estoppel to determine whether the chain store would prevail on a claim of either. Why or why not? Include support for your analysis. C. Identify the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant under a standard residential lease agreement. D. Based upon those rights and obligations, does Sam’s landlord have grounds to evict? Why or why not? E. Further, what defenses might Sam raise to an eviction action? Support your response.