Privity. The rule of privity has developed significantly in the law of contract, over the twentieth century, due to fundamental chances in statute and the development of case law.
Privity Essay Question The rule of privity has developed significantly in the law of contract, over the twentieth century, due to fundamental chances in statute and the development of case law. Under the rule of privity, only a party to the contract can have obligation/burden under it. Further only a party to a contract can benefit from it, even if both parties agree in the contract that there will be a benefit for a third party. According to Trielel, 'a contract cannot confer rights, and secondly improve liability on anyone that isn't a party to it.' The case of Tweddle v Atkinson highlights these sentiments clearly. Fundamentally it was considered, only the person who has provided consideration had the right to enforce a promise, despite the fact it was expressly stated William Tweddle had "full power to sue for aforesaid sums, specified". Coupton J stated, "The consideration must move from the party untitled to sue upon the contract." It was deemed even by getting married T had not provided sufficient consideration and could not sue. Further, quite relevantly argued T was not a 'party to the contract' and perhaps this was because he did not provide sufficient consideration. A further establishment of the rule of privity was given by the Judgement of Viscount Haldane in the case of Dunlop v Selfridge. In the decision Dunlop's action failed because they had provided
What is the importance of implied terms to the contract of employment
What is the importance of implied terms to the contract of employment? A contract of employment comes into existence once an employee's offer of services had been accepted, and the employer is required to issue a written statement of the main terms and conditions of employment1. Because the employment relationship is so extensive it is impossible to capture all the 'intentions' of the parties or 'necessities' of the employment relationship on that statement. This means that the contract of employment - in addition to being represented in other forms2 - is also governed by implied terms, which allow the courts to 'read in' certain terms that are necessary to make the contract of employment work. The test for implication of terms is 'necessity' 3 and not reasonableness4. There are three ways of incorporating implied terms into the contract of employment - by fact, by law, and custom5. A term implied by fact is specific to the particular contract of employment. It would be implied that a doctor working in a hospital holds a medical license to practise. Two tests are used to determine whether there is a term of specific implication - the business efficacy test of whether the term was necessary to make the contract work6, and the officious bystander test of where an officious bystander to suggest the express provision of the term he would have been suppressed with a common
In advising Bennys position of the interest over the said property (the flat), it is necessary to examine the relationship between Amy and Benny, because, the flat is at Amys sole name.
In advising Benny's position of the interest over the said property ("the flat"), it is necessary to examine the relationship between Amy and Benny, because, "the flat" is at Amy's sole name. It is not arguable, Amy is the legal owner and subsequently withheld the legal title. Also, they are unmarried couple and started cohabiting lived at "the flat". Besides "the flat" was free of mortgage, in virtue of Amy's earned profits made from her investments. Thus, it is difficult for Benny to entitle as he wished at least a half share of "the flat". In analysis the proposition of legal authority, there are two limbs of recognised interest over "the flat", either legal interest or equitable interest. Legal interest is binding upon to the whole world, all subsequent created legal or equitable interest. Admittedly, Benny did not have such legal interest (or estate). The legal interest (or estate) is enforced by the common law rules, as well defined at Section 2 of CPO1 in statutory and creates into formalities (emphasis on 'form'). It means that "the flat" is to be disposed (i.e. transferred and created) its legal interest by assignment ("conveyancing document"). Must be in the form of a deed signed, sealed and delivered by the vendor (one hold legal title as legal owner) to effect a valid transfer of legal estate2. Owing to Amy's sole name over "the flat", then Benny did not have
Detail the possible rights and obligations of both Tenant and Landlord.Use examples and case law. Be as comprehensive as possible as to the possible options.
LANDLAW AND LANDLORD AND TENANT LAW COURSEWORK ) 1.0 Detail the possible rights and obligations of both Tenant and Landlord. Use examples and case law. Be as comprehensive as possible as to the possible options. Relationships between landlords and tenants are governed by several statutes and court rulings. However, the most important source of information is the rental agreement, whether it is written or oral. Some landlords prefer oral agreements; however it's most common for them to require your signature on a written lease. When a rented property is leased from a landlord for residential use, the arrangement is called a 'residential lease'. Where as if a business leases a rented property, the agreement for the arrangement is called a commercial lease. Reference 1 There are many similarities between the two types of leases, however many differences too. The law often regulates the relationship between a tenant and a landlord under a residential lease. These laws are designed to provide basic requirements for the condition of the rental property, and to protect tenants from dishonest landlords. On the contrary, commercial leases are viewed as being contracts between knowledgeable business people, whom therefore should be able to negotiate the terms of the lease to their respective satisfaction. They are able to contract anything they wish, resulted from 'freedom
Consideration
Consideration Francis agrees to build a swimming pool for Gerald for £5,000, payable on completion. After beginning to dig the pool, Francis hits a layer of rock, which makes the work a great deal harder. Francis refuses to proceed unless he is promised another £2,000. Gerald reluctantly agrees to pay Francis, and as a gesture of goodwill he makes one or two small improvements to the pool. On completion, Gerald tells Francis that all he can afford is £5,000. Since Francis is also short of cash, he agrees to accept £5,000 in full settlement. Francis has now discovered that Gerald is rich enough to install a wave machine in his pool. Advise Francis, who now wants to recover the £2,000 that he was promised. All contracts require that something is given in return for something else from the other party, this is known as consideration. There are many definitions of consideration, but Currie v Misa (1875) is a very known one, which states 'A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other'. A more up-to-date version of this definition however, is from the case, Dunlop v Selfridge (1915), 'An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought'.
Law of Contract. With reference to case law, identify and discuss whether the common law rules relating to acceptance of offers provide certainty for businesses.
Law of Contract QUESTION: With reference to case law, identify and discuss whether the common law rules relating to acceptance of offers provide certainty for businesses. The offer can be considered as ‘a clear statement of the terms on which one party (the offeror) is prepared to do business with another party (the offeree)’. (Adams, 2012) An offer usually can be a unilateral offer (a promise in return for a promise) or a bilateral offer (a promise in return for an act). (Adams, 2012) In other words, a unilateral offer is an offer made by one party and a bilateral offer is an agreement between two. And an offer can be accepted is based on the agreement of the contracting parties. In order to have the force of law, such acceptance must satisfy the regulations below. Firstly, the offeree must flower the offer as contracted and not trying to introduce new term. Secondly, the acceptance must subject to contract. Finally, acceptance must be communicated. So in my opinion, if the offer Accords with the rules above, the common law rules which relating to acceptance of offers can provide certainty for businesses. (Adams, 2012) In a unilateral offer, the acceptance relies on the obligation of offeror. For example, if a store offers a discount, only the store is obligated. No one has promised to take the store up on the offer, but if someone does, the store is responsible to
Billy Joel Business Ethics and Law Case Study. In the above case scenario, the oral contract that was made between the seller and the buyer are not binding in the court of law in accordance to the contract law.
Business Ethics & Law Case Study Case Study Billy Joel decided he wanted to learn to play the violin for his next set of concerts. He called a violin salesman in New York and asked if he had any for sale. The salesman stated he had a Stradivarius and a Guarnerius (two famous brands of violins) and offered to sell them to Billy for $80,000 and $24,000, respectively. Billy agreed, over the phone, to purchase the violins from the salesman and told him he would be in town the next week to pick them up. Billy didn't show up for two months, and when he entered the store, the salesman wasn't there. His wife, Margaret, was there in the store, however, and she had full knowledge of the deal cut between her husband and Billy. (She'd heard her husband whining, complaining, and wailing about Billy not showing up for the last 2 months - and she was really sick of hearing about it.) Billy asked to see the violins, and Margaret showed him both of them. Billy stated he would agree to pay $65,000 for both of them, and Margaret, knowing that they were counterfeits and only worth $2,000 AND realizing that their house was about to go into foreclosure, agreed to the reduction in price and sold Billy the two violins for $65,000. She gave him a bill of sale that she wrote out on a note pad on the counter, which said, "Paid in full. Strativarus and Granruius violans. $65,000. Chk # 4301 Billy
Using relevant case law explain why the distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer is important in Contract law.
Using relevant case law explain why the distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer is important in Contract law. An 'invitation to treat' is inviting parties to create a contract. It represents the preliminary stage of negotiation. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed. An invitation to treat is always a fixed price and a choice; it is not an offer to sell. Newspapers and catalogues are examples of invitations to treat. An 'offer' is defined as a statement of willingness where the person who is making the offer (offeror), promises to be bound in a contract if the terms of the offer are accepted by the person accepting the offer (offeree). An individual or organisation can make an offer to another individual (bilateral) another company or to anyone in the world (unilateral). An offer can be "express"- for example if A tells B he will sell his radio for £30. An offer can also be "implied" from conduct - for example when A brings goods to the supermarket cash desk. It is tough to differentiate between an invitation to treat and an offer as it depends on the intention of the party making an invitation to treat which is shown in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1932] 1 QB 401, where the defendants changed the format of their shop
Law and Ethics in tourism
To discuss about if Mary is right or not in this case it is necessary to analyze the Package Travel Regulations. According to Holiday Law: The law relating to Travel and tourism book (Grant, D., Mason, S. 2007) a contract is an agreement that the law will enforce. Before the contract is made the two parties must provide each other with something of value. There must be actually an agreement, if the parties have not come to an agreement then there will be no contract. In a contract the consideration by the client would be the payment for the holiday and the consideration by the tour operator would be the provision of the holiday itself. The consideration needs not actually be exchanged for the contract to be binding it is sufficient that each party has promised to provide the consideration in exchange for the other promise. Before 1992 there was no such requirement for package holiday contract and it was possible to make contracts without putting them into writing. A valid contract must have an offer from one side and acceptance of the offer from another side. An acceptance is the unqualified agreement to the terms of the offer, that means that the acceptor, having received the terms of the offer, is equally prepared to commit himself and does so simply by agreeing, without any strings attached, to what the offeror propose. In terms of a package holiday contract that if
Critically evaluate what in law will amount to an offer
Critically evaluate what in law will amount to an offer An offer is a statement of willingness to contract on specified terms made with the intention that, if accepted, it shall become a binding contract. However, in law there are many things that look like an offer but really are not... A general example of an offer is shown in the case of Leftkowitz V. Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores (1957) whereby, There was an advert put in the local paper stating 'on Saturday 9pm sharp, 3 brand new fur coats worth $100 first come first serve for $1 each.' A man wanted to buy a coat and had come at the right time and was one of the 3 first people there, the store refused to sell it to him because he was not a woman. This was held as an offer because the advert contained specific details on how to get the item; therefore the acceptance was when the man said I want to have this coat for $1. And the man was rewarded with the nice fur coat. However things that appear to be an offer at first my indeed turn out not to be, as in the case of Fischer V. Bell (1961) whereby The restriction of offensive weapons act (1889) stated it is an offence to offer for sale a flick-knife, (amongst others). A shopkeeper keeps a flick-knife in a window. He was taken to court. It was held that the flick-knife in the window was invitation to treat. Therefore invitation to treat though it may seem similar to an
