The doctrine of frustration
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826; 122 ER 309 (QB) In this case the defendants had entered into a contract on May 27, 1861, by which the defendants (Caldwell) agreed to let the plaintiffs (Taylor) have use of the Surrey Gardens and Music Hall on four future days, these being June 17th, July 15th, August 5th and August 19th. The Hall was to be used to host a series of four grand concerts and day and night fetes at the Gardens and Hall and the plaintiffs agreed to take the Gardens and Hall on those days, and pay £100 per day. After the making of the agreement, on June 11th, 6 days before the first day of the events, the Hall was destroyed by fire. This destruction was without the fault of either party and was so complete that in consequence, the concerts could not be given as intended. When framing their agreement, the parties had not considered the occurrence of such events and as such had no express stipulation with reference to it. The plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of moneys spent for advertising and other preparations for the concerts. It was held, as stated by Lord Blackburn, that the Music Hall having ceased to exist, without fault of either party, both parties are excused; the plaintiffs from taking the gardens and paying the money, and the defendants from performing their promise to give the use of the Hall and Gardens and other things. Consequently
Dealing with problems of offer and acceptance.
Contents . Introduction 2 2. Contractual effect of the advertisement 2 3. Offer by telephone by Rob 3 4. Rob's reply by letter 3 5. Sale to Sunita 4 6. Bibliography 5 . Introduction In dealing with problems of offer and acceptance, the Courts have taken a strict approach, stating that there must be clear offer and acceptance in order to create a binding contract. As such, offers must be clear on their terms and capable of acceptance and can only be accepted on terms that mirror the offer, as established in the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979) 1. There are dicta in certain cases, notably in the judgments of Lord Denning MR, which have attempted to mitigate this harsh approach, in the case of Butler Machine Tools Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-o Corporation (England) Ltd (1979)2. However, as Lord Denning's approach in the Court of Appeal was firmly rejected by the House of Lords in Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979)3, it is submitted that these dicta do not represent the current law. However, it is necessary to consider each communication that took place between the parties in this case, to see if the formalities of offer and acceptance have been fulfilled and if so, with whom the contracts exist with. 2. Contractual effect of the advertisement Usually in contract law, advertisements are not considered to be offers, but are invitations to treat Partridge v
In your own words summarise the views of Fenton Atkinson and Salmon L and state, with reasons, which you prefer. You do not need to deal with the judgement of Danckwerts .
In the case of Jones v Padavatton (1969) 2 All ER the Court of Appeal decided that there was no legally binding contract. Although the decision was unanimous the three Court of Appeal judges did not all give the same reasons. In your own words summarise the views of Fenton Atkinson and Salmon L and state, with reasons, which you prefer. You do not need to deal with the judgement of Danckwerts . Citation: Jones v Padavatton (1969) 2 ALL ER 616 - Electronic Version. The judges were deciding an appeal by the mother, Violet Lalgee Jones. By way of case stated from Clerkenwell County Court, on grounds: 1. the judge misdirected himself in holding that there had been intentions of legal relations between the two parties. 2. The judge misdirected himself in holding that that agreement was not void for uncertainty. 3. The judge's conclusions were not supported by evidence. 4. The judge mistakenly failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence given by or on behalf of the mother and 5. The judge misdirected himself in holding that the daughter was entitled to remain in the mother's house for an indefinite amount of time. Commencing with Salmon 's view, he first had to decide whether there was ever a legally binding agreement between the mother and the daughter in relation to the daughter's reading for the Bar in England. He begins, quoting Atkins in the case of Balfour v
A contract by definition is an agreement between two parties by which both parties are bound by the
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DEVISION) BETWEEN: ERIC POLLARD (APPELLANT) -AND- VIV WINDSOR (RESPONDENT) WRITTEN ARGUMENT - SENIOR RESPONDENT; ISI BACKGROUND Viv Windsor bought a local shop and a computer, Anxious to please the locals, put an advert in the local news paper on a Saturday, stating that she would sell luxury chocolate shortbread for £2.50 instead of the recommended retail price of £5. She also stated that anyone wanting the shortbread should email her or come to the shop. Eric pollard, the appellant saw the email at 4.30pm on Saturday and sent her email on the same day. She realised that evening that she was making lose so she decided to revoke the advert. She contacted the newspaper who published her revocation 9.am the next morning. The paper got delivered to Eric at 10.30am Viv checked her email at 10.35am, She replied stating that the discount was no longer available. Eric sued her for breach of contract. A GROUND OF APPEAL There was no contract between Viv and Eric since the notice in the paper was not an offer but an invitation to treat. ARGUEMENT A contract by definition is an agreement between two parties by which both parties are bound by the law and which can therefore be enforced in a court or other equivalent forum. The law of contract has been known to
Contract Law - Acceptance.
Acceptance Acceptance of an offer means unconditional agreement to all the terms of that offer. Acceptance will often be oral or in writing, but in some cases an offeree may accept an offer by doing something, such as delivering goods in response to an offer to buy. The Courts will only interpret conduct as indicating acceptance if it seems reasonable to infer that the offeree acted with the intention of accepting the offer. CASE: Brogden v Metropolian Rail Co (1877) Remaining silent cannot amount to acceptance, unless it is absolutely clear that acceptance was intended. CASE: Felthouse v Bindley (1862) Re Selectmove Ltd (1995) - The Court of Appeal pointed out that an acceptance by silence could be sufficient if it was the offeree who suggested that their silence would be sufficient. Thus in Felthouse, if the nephew had been the one to say that if his uncle heard nothing more he could treat the offer as accepted, there would have been a contract. Unilateral contracts are usually accepted by conduct. If I offer £100 to anyone who finds my lost dog, finding the dog will be acceptance of the offer, making my promise binding - it is not necessary for anyone to contact me and say that they intend to take up my offer and find the dog. Acceptance must be unconditional An acceptance must accept the precise terms of an offer. CASE: Tim v Hoffman (1873) - one party
The first importance is establishing that a valid contract has been made between the two parties, Alfie and Garage
MARIO NARGI BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW LEVEL 4 20 CREDIT POINTS MODULE LEADER : J.MARSON HAND IN : 25th Jan 2005 Problem 1: 947 words Alfie and the Local Garage Intro: Alfie needs a garage for a new clutch. For Alfie to know to take his car to this garage there must have been an invitation to treat by an advert of some sort displaying what the garage undertakes. Alfie decided to go in, he asked the garage to fix his car, an offer is on the table, the garage person accepts to fix the car and in return for the work of a new clutch, a sum of £400 is to be paid. The first importance is establishing that a valid contract has been made between the two parties, Alfie and Garage. These two parties have committed themselves to carry out specific terms; these are discussed when bringing the car into the garage. The garage has agreed to install a new clutch in the Jaguar XK8, and Alfie has agreed to pay the price given to him of £400. Alfie leaves the car, he has accepted the deal. It is later confirmed by paying the sum of money, even though the amount to be paid increases. Usually when taking a car into a garage and leaving it to be repaired, a written contract is rarely, if ever drafted together. This is because the procedure is a common one and happens many times a day; it would be impractical to perform this everytime. A substitute for this however is in the form of an
Case About Consideration
Case About Consideration This is a question involving technicalities in contract law, consideration, human rights and property law. It is axiomatic to recognize the fact that Peter has a legal obligation not to follow Mary deliberately (and she would almost be sure of invoking such a defence), but her request for him not to stay in the same city could be viewed as way above that obligation and thus if Peter does go to the extent of moving away from the city, he could very well have given to her a practical benefit sufficient enough to effect consideration. This however, would only be recognized by the courts as consideration if his acts fulfill the requirement of economic value. The case has since been subjected to publicity since the incursion of the Human Rights movement and the resultant policy concerns. In this question, it establishes relationship between the two parties, Peter and Mary. It is a promise or a set of promises. It is defined as "every promise or set of promises forming consideration for each other". In this case, it is a social agreement which does not create any legal obligation between them. Hence it is not enforceable in a court of law. Thus, this case is an illegal contract. Compensation is assessed on the basis that the applicant must be put back in the position Peter would have been in if the discrimination had not been committed. Similar case
In "The Racial Contract" Charles Mills defines a race traitor as a white person who rejects the inherent privilege of being white, and who attempts to combat the inequalities of the racial contract.
In "The Racial Contract" Charles Mills defines a race traitor as a white person who rejects the inherent privilege of being white, and who attempts to combat the inequalities of the racial contract. Since a white person's job as a signatory of the racial contract is to propagate white supremacy by working against colored people and for other whites, a person who treats colored people equally or goes so far as to attempt to balance out inequities in society by treating colored people better than whites is a traitor to the racial contract. Mills argues that white people in the United States ought to be race traitors. Since the view the racism is wrong is widely held, once white people realize that they are upholding the racial contract in their daily lives they should attempt to become race traitors. The problem of dysconciousness often leads white people to not see the racism that exists, but it is there to be seen never the less. One way in which whites can be race traitors in the US is by righting the economic inequalities inherent in the racial contract. Reparations or a redistribution of wealth equally instead of along racial lines would be one step towards destroying the racial contract. Mills suggests, "wealth is more important than income in determining the likelihood of future racial equalization, since it has a cumulative effect that is passed down through
What makes an offer binding?
MARINI & FISCHER LTD. SOLICITORS Date: 24 May 2002 Our Reference : 'Ambassador Desks' 123456/B Your Reference : Westway Office/ Legal, May 02 Subject : Legal rules which involves the sell of Ambassador Desks Westway Office Equipment 29 Church Road Hove BN3 2JH Dear Sir or Madam, In response to your letter for legal advice involving the sale of one particular type of desks the 'Ambassador'. This case has been analysed into a number of points involving the Law of Contract. In order for a contract to be enforceable under English Law by an action in the civil courts, there must be a valid offer and acceptance. An offer may be made to a particular person or, in some cases, to the world at large. A valid offer is a clear statement of the terms on which party (the offeror) is prepared to do business with another party (the offeree), provided to be capable of acceptance, the offer must not be too vague and must be unconditionally accepted by the other party. Very briefly, I would also like to give the definition of contract for your reference: "A contract is an agreement between two or more persons which is intended by them to be legally binding". However, areas of law concerned in your case with legal issues explained below together with examples
In this task I am going to investigate statutory consumer protection. I will be taking part in a legal meeting (acting as a Contract Law Solicitor) representing Jordan Smith who wants to make 2 complaints; one to the manager of Comfyfloors and the other t
Introduction In this task I am going to investigate statutory consumer protection. I will be taking part in a legal meeting (acting as a Contract Law Solicitor) representing Jordan Smith who wants to make 2 complaints; one to the manager of Comfyfloors and the other to Trevor Taylor. Consumer protection law Consumer protection is there to protect a buyer from the seller. Everyday of our lives we consume, use, or simply come into contact with countless different products. We should be able to assume that those products are safe. The aim of Consumer Protection Act is to help safeguard the consumer from the products that do not reach a reasonable level of safety. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 also protects consumers from sellers. This Act sets out the basic rights of consumers when buying goods from a company or business. Jordan v Comfyfloors * A contract is formed when one party makes an offer, the other accepts, and both parties' give some sort of consideration. In Jordan v Comfyfloors case the contract has been formed under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 because Comfyfloors (the seller) agreed to transfer the carpet to Jordan (the buyer) for money. This law gives customer the right to complaint for damages and demand the seller to sort out the problem. * Implied terms aren't written down anywhere, but are understood to exist. If there's nothing clearly agreed between you and
