Multiple deals in a row and reasonable expectation
<p>I once heard that there is a certain level of reasonable expectation that is guaranteed by law when it comes to making multiple deals with others.</p>

<p>For instance, is the following legal or illegal to do.</p>

<ul>
<li>Bill offered to Mow Janes lawn for $1, which is agreeable.</li>
<li>Bill mows the lawn, and gives Jane a bill for $1.</li>
<li>Jane happily pays.</li>
<li>A week pasts, and Jane asks Bill to mow her lawn again. </li>
<li>Bill mows the lawn again, and give Jane a bill for $2</li>
<li>Jane asks why $2 and not $1, like last week</li>
<li>Bill says that he changed the price within the last week due to high demand of his services, and that is what he charges everyone now.</li>
</ul>

<p>I do not mind which country the law exists, or if it exists at all; I was told that this was illegal to do (anecdotally), and I just want to get a quick opinion (not used in any legal way, just to cure my curiosity) and see if they were telling the truth or not.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Bill and Jane are free to enter into a contract where, among other things, each provides valuable consideration; in this case Bill provides valuable lawn mowing services and Jane provides valuable money.</p>

<p>In week No 1 they have negotiated the terms and the contract is complete when Bill mows the lawn and Jane pays the money.</p>

<p>If Bill turns up next week without Jane's instruction then there is no contract and Jane does not have to pay anything; I don't think this is what you are asking but I include it for completeness.</p>

<p>If it is understood that this arrangement continue week after week then either there is an ongoing contract or, more likely, a series of independent contracts.</p>

<p>If there is an ongoing contract, then it can be renegotiated but it cannot be changed unilaterally by Bill. That is, he cannot unilaterally increase the price to $2.</p>

<p>If there is a series of contracts then the terms of each of those contracts will be the same based on the <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Course+of+Dealing" rel="nofollow">course of dealing</a>. Basically, the parties have accepted over a long period of time that the rate for a mow is $1 and Bill would have to get Jane to accept the revised rate <em>before</em> he mows the lawn. For your example, Jane owes Bill $1 but if she wants him back next week she will have to agree to Bill's rate.</p>

<p>I think your friend is correct. I think Jane has a good case that she only owes $1. If Bill and Jane did <strong>not</strong> reach a <strong>separate agreement</strong> before Bill mowed the lawn a second time then Jill has a "<strong>reasonable expectation</strong>" that the price would be $1 because that was the price the week before.</p>

<p>The fact that the price was not stated or renegotiated between the first and the second mowing creates an implied understanding that the first price is still valid.</p>

business