Taylor Lautner v. Taylor Swift

The main issue in this case is whether Taylor Lautner v. Taylor Swift entered into a legal contract during their cohabitant. If said contract was agreed upon that Swift was to compensate Lautner if her career was to advance.

This is a civil contract case. A contract is a promissory agreement between two or more people that remove all legally enforceable obligation. Since people enter into a contract voluntarily, those contract term are not imposed by law. (p. 44)
A contract does not have the tangible documentation that contains evidence of an agreement. There are three part of every contract; offer, acceptance, and consideration. The offer is a written or oral communication of the agreement and what is to be returned. The acceptance is evidence of agreeing to the terms and the consideration is the confinement that both parties have entered into the agreement. When one of the parties fails to perform their contractual obligation, then there is a breach of contract.
The Court examined this issue in Suggs v. Norris (1988), where as in the case of Fernandez v. Gaza (1960) unmarried cohabitant agreed to share their property equally where such was not based upon sexual services as consideration. Also in Wallace v. Evens (1982) we learned where Wallace began cohabitating with Evens and believed they were partners in Evens business. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to have inferred Wallace's work comprised as business relationship. Because the evidence was favorable to Suggs there was sufficient evidence to permit to find mutual understanding between Suggs and Norris and that Suggs did not work free of charge. (p. 46)
Since Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift did not enter into any written, oral, or understanding contract, there was no agreement on to any compensation for Lautner if Swift's career had advanced. There was an agreement about the cohabitant on the splitting the rent evenly between the parties. Both parties advanced their own careers at their own expense or accord, with no aid from the other. Due to no sufficient evidence of the parties entering an agreement, there are no grounds for Lautner the be compensated for cohabitating with Swift.

The court should rule in favor of the Taylor Swift.