A contract is an agreement made basing on the promises made by either one or both the parties involved in some business transactions (Kelly, Holmes & Hayward, 2005). It is, usually, legal and enforceable if it has a consideration, its bargains are legal and the parties involved have the capacity to enter the contract. In addition to these aspects, neither of the parties should exhibit fraudulent intentions. Instead, the parties willingly consent to the terms that make up the contract as a sign of making and accepting the offer (Kelly, Holmes & Hayward, 2005). In most contracts, there has to be some writings to show consent. This is, usually, the best evidence of the existence of a contract. Nonetheless, it does not mean that a contract must always be written in order to be enforceable. Some contracts are made verbally or through the actions of either of the parties. The lack of the items mentioned in this discussion in any contract means that it cannot be enforced by any court of law (Kelly, Holmes & Hayward, 2005). The case of Jim and Laura vs. the automobile company is a good example of such a contract, where agreements are made without necessarily having to write down the terms. A consideration exists when there is something that induces both parties to enter into a contract (Keenan & Riches, 2007). When such a benefit is missing, the parties do not see the need to have the contract. Similarly, when the benefit is felt by only one of the parties, the other party may not see the reason for entering into the contract. In other words, the benefits of the contract must be in both directions: both the party making an offer and that accepting the offer must have a benefit when the contract is made. A consideration has two elements: exchange and value (Kelly, Holmes & Hayward, 2005). Value refers to the benefits both parties stand to get once the contract is made. These benefits carry a measurable value and form the core of the exchange of promises. Exchange, on the other hand, refers to the promises made by both parties in the process of fulfilling the requirements of the contract. In the case of Jim and Laura, the values involved are the money to be paid by the couple and the car. Stan, on behalf of the company, gets the money while Jim and Laura get the car they were interested in having (Kelly, Holmes & Hayward, 2005). The bargains in Jim and Laura and Stan’s contract are legal because the two parties have no plans to buy or sell any contraband goods. The company is licensed to sell vehicles and, on the other hand, the couple is planning to use their legally acquired money in purchasing the automobile. Therefore, the contract cannot be considered unenforceable on this ground (Keenan & Riches, 2007). Besides, the two parties have the capacity to enter into any type of contract because they are old enough, and the law allows anybody in their age bracket to make his/her own decisions (Kelly, Holmes & Hayward, 2005). Apart from the already mentioned conditions, the parties do not show any fraudulent intentions (Keenan & Riches, 2007). Jim and Laura were initially very genuine in wanting to have a car. They did not plan to defraud the vehicle company by tricking them that they would pay for it only to have it for a day. On the other hand, Stan did not expect them to change