Extracts from this document...

Introduction

CASE STUDY LAW CASE STUDY 1 This is an unenforceable agreement which courts will refuse to enforce. It is a gambling agreement or Sponsione Ludicrae (Ludicrous promises). It's a contract in which people enter by usually placing a bet on a variety of sporting event or activity. The courts will not enforce these kinds of disputes which arise out of these agreements as they regard them as beneath them and their dignity. This stems from the time of Christianity which was a much more powerful force. Gambling was seen as a social evil and in no circumstances was such activity to be tolerated and promoted. They seen by denying gamblers an effective means of enforcing these kinds of agreement courts were more or less telling people they did so at their own risk. Relevant cases Ferguson v Littlewoods Pools Ltd (1997) - Members of a pool syndicate had won several millions of pounds on a football coupon or so they thought. The syndicate was unaware that the agent for Littlewoods pools had not forwarded the stake money as he had stolen it. When theft was recovered the syndicate members demanded that Littlewoods honour the winning tickets. Littlewoods claimed they had never received the winning tickets. The syndicate argued that Littlewoods was responsible for the actions of its dishonest agent. The syndicate took this to court. The Court of Session held by Lord Coulsfield in the outer house he said that the contract between the syndicate and Littlewoods was an example of a gambling agreement or gaming contract so was therefore unenforceable. Lord Coulsfield refused to order Littlewoods to pay sum out owing them. Robertson v Balfour (1938) - Robertson had entered into a gambling agreement with Balfour a bookie to place bets on two horses one called swift and true and the other called scotch horse. Both horses run their races but when Robertson went to claim his winnings all he received was a mere �10 from Balfour. ...read more.

Middle

or handing it over to a post office employee such as a counter clerk who is authorised to forward the letter for posting. This is in spite of it taking a day or two to arrive and the offeror is ignorant of the offeree's decision but it is never the less a contract formed. If acceptance is accepted by post then a contract is immediately formed. If the offeror decided to withdraw the offer then to ensure that the withdrawal is effective, the offeror would have to put this in place for a letter to reach the offeree before they have the chance to post the acceptance on the other end and thus form a contract. So if the offeree decided they wanted to cancel the acceptance they would have to make sure the cancellation reached the offeror before the other letter or call to cancel. Before it reached the offeror. If a letter is missing in the post then as long as the sender has a receipt of posting acceptance it will still be valid and the contract will still stand. For it not to stand then the letter of offer must state that it does not apply to the postal rule so it does not apply to the dealings of any contract. Relevant case Jacobson v Underwood (1894) - on the 2nd of March Underwood sent a letter containing an offer to Jacobson using the royal Mail. Underwood's letter stated offer must be accepted by the 6th March. On the 6th of March Jacobson posted his letter of acceptance to Underwood but it did not reach him until 7th March. The contract was held as the postal rule had applied that the offer had been accepted on time by being posted on the 6th March. In order to have protected himself Underwood should have stated that the acceptance would not be valid until physically reached him and so expressively exclude the postal rule in his dealings. ...read more.

Conclusion

Before the first concert on 17 June 1862 could take place the hall was completely destroyed by fire. Neither party was responsible for this incident the pursuers had however brought an action for damages against the defenders in wasting advertising costs. The English high court said that it was clearly impossible for the contract to be performed because it had relied on the continuous existence of the venue. The pursuers claim was dismissed for damages on the grounds that the purpose of the contract had been frustrated. Vitol SA v Esso Australia (1988) - a contract for petroleum was discharged on the grounds of frustration when both the ship and its cargo of petroleum was destroyed in a missile attack in the Persian Gulf during the Iran - Iraq War of the 1980's. The sellers attempt to sue the buyers for the price of goods was dismissed. Even with the cancellation of an event if the importance to identify the substance or purpose of the agreement was found. It can be frustrated if it is found that the material term of the agreement is cancelled and it is the whole reason why the contract took place in the first place. For e.g. if you hire a flat to look out over a precession and you told the land lord the only reason you are hiring it at this time for this reason and the precession is cancelled then it can be cancelled under frustration of contract. If the main reason had not been informed to the landlord then no would not be able to cancel it. It is important to identify the main purpose and substance of the agreement. It is also important to examine the terms of the agreement. It can only be used in situations where neither party is to blame, but where one party is to blame then it represents a breach of contract. Also just because something becomes more expensive to perform does not mean that it can be frustrated. ...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.