There are four basic elements of a contract that must be fulfilled
The events can be described as below: --Chris placed advertisement in the magazine. --Paul phoned Chris on Monday, and made an offer £10,000 for the car. -- At 11.00am on Wednesday Paul left message on Chris's phone said he agreed to take the car with £11,000. But Chris did not receive message. --Roger phoned Chris at 2.00pm on Wednesday made appointment to see the car at 10.00am on Thursday. He made an offer with £11,000, and Chris accepted it. --At 2.00pm on Thursday, Paul knew Roger has bought the car. --Paul posted letter to Chris confirming he had left message on the answering machine. --Chris wrote to Paul withdrawing his offer. --At 11.00am on Friday Paul received Chris's letter. --At 1.00pm Chris received Paul's letter. In order to advise Paul, it is necessary to consider the law related to the following aspects. The main areas which need to be focused on are the offer and acceptance. This will include what an offer and acceptance are, and what an invitation to treat is, as well communication, counter offer and revocation of an offer. There are four basic elements of a contract that must be fulfilled. Firstly, there must be an agreement between the parties involved, this usually only happens when one party has made an offer and the other has accepted. There must also be an intention to create legal relations, of in other words, to be legally bound by the
Contract Law problem cases. Kamil want to sell his laptop with his friend Sam. Sam agrees to buy the laptop at the price of $500, and pays Kamil. Kamil later discovers the laptop could have been sold at a higher price
There are three separate issues in this topic .now; I will discuss every issue below. No 1 Issue Kamil Mcelory is a 17- year old student as a minor. He and Michael signed an agreement that he bought the Kenwood Excelon DNX9140 high performance multimedia DVD for $1500 and paid in three instalments of $500 each. However, Kamil pays the first two instalments and fails to pay the final instalment. The main issue is whether the agreement between Kamil and Micheal is a binding contract or not. Rules This case involves: Capacity to contract: the capacity of certain individuals and entities to enter into legal contracts may be affected .The following individuals may not have the required legal capacity to contract: ·Minors ·Drunkards ·Bankrupts (T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p85.) Contract law: A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do, or refrain from doing, an act, which resulting contract is enforceable in a court of law. (Law article, 17th Jan 2010) Contact for necessaries: necessaries are defined as goods suitable to the condition in life of a minor and to their actual requirements at the time of such sale and delivery. (T. Ciro and V. Goldwasser, 2006, p.86) Verbal agreements do not form a contract to some extent. In this case , they have agreement ,but the Kamil is a minor and sound equipment is not necessaries for him ,so
Principals of Law.
Principals of Law Coursework R.J. Carmichael Contents Introduction Brief Definitions Task 1- What Remedies does Mary have Against Tom Task 2- Spartacus Graduates with 1st class honours. Is Sir Harry Bound in contract to pay Spartacus? Task 2- Suppose Sir Harry had said "If you buy a suitable boat and trailer I will reward you with £1000". Is Sir Harry Bound in Contract to Spartacus? Cases- List of cases used. Bibliography- List of material used Introduction Mozley and Whitleys Law Dictionary1 states a contract to be, "An agreement between competent persons, upon legal consideration, to do or abstain from doing some act." For the purpose of this essay we will look at the classical contract model. This consists of three essential members:- ) Agreement- to do something in return for a promise. 2) Consideration- exchange of something of value (but not necessarily of equal value) 3) Intension to be bound- to make a binding agreement, enforceable in law. Although they make up the essential members other requirements must be met. These include compliance with Common Law and Statute (e.g. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997), or other legal requirements (e.g. age of consent) It must also be noted that the agreement requirement of a contract is split up into two essential components. They are offer and acceptance, which can occasionally be difficult to see / separate.
'The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 has replaced one bad rule with another.' Discuss.
CONTRACT WEEK 5 Elizabeth Harwood Q) 'The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 has replaced one bad rule with another.' Discuss. The 1999 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act introduced a 'wide-ranging exception' to the doctrine of privity, allowing third parties to enforce contract terms in certain situations. This reform followed widespread criticism of the doctrine and although the provisions in the Act have been met with concern that it will create more problems than it will solve, it seems that overall it has the potential to make a positive contribution to Contract Law. There were many perceived problems with the old rule that led to the Law Commission's recommendations for action. It is explained in the Report that there are two aspects to the doctrine of privity; a stranger to a contract cannot have burdens imposed on them and a stranger to a contract cannot enforce the contract, even if it is made for their benefit. Although the first aspect does not cause much debate, the fact that a third party has no right to enforce a contract aiming to benefit them has been subject to considerable criticism. Lord Denning in Beswick v Beswick, Scruttons v Midlands Silicones and Smith & Snipes Hall Farm v River Douglas Catchment Bd criticised the doctrine but his attempts were unsuccessful in prompting great
Roger now seeks your advice on whether he is contractually bound to sell his car to Archie.
QUESTION: On the 1st of February 2003, Roger advertised in the newspapers in the "For Sale" column. "For Sale - Toyota Car 1300cc 1995 Model. $20,000 or nearest offer" The Advertisement was followed by Roger's address and telephone number. On the 2nd February, having read the advertisement, Archie posted a letter saying 'I agree to buy your car for $20,000, signed Archie.' The letter reached Roger and was read by him at 9.00a.m. on the 4th February 2003. On the 3rd February 2003, Ben telephoned Roger and left a message on Roger's answering machine saying "I agree to buy your car for $20,000." Roger received this message on the evening of 3rd February 2003 but was unable to make contact with Ben until 10.00a.m.the following day. Roger now seeks your advice on whether he is contractually bound to sell his car to Archie. Advise Roger. ANSWER: This is a case on Offer and Acceptance. An Invitation To Treat is an offer to negotiate or an offer to receive offers. Unlike an offer, it is not an indication by the person making it that he is willing to be bound should the other party be interested in proceeding further. In the case of Pattridge Vs Crittenden, it was held that an advertisement in the newspapers only amounts to an invitation to treat. The Advertisement is an invitation for people to make offers to purchase, and is not an offer for sale. Applying the case of
!["The common element [of the doctrines of both common mistake and frustration] is ... that both doctrines are concerned with the allocation of risk of unforeseen events." Ewan McKendrick Contract Law: Text, cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP, 2005) p.636. Di](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/805780/listing/805780_1.jpg)
"The common element [of the doctrines of both common mistake and frustration] is ... that both doctrines are concerned with the allocation of risk of unforeseen events." Ewan McKendrick Contract Law: Text, cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP, 2005) p.636. Di
Law of Obligations 1: The Law of Contract ASSESSMENT 4 Question: "The common element [of the doctrines of both common mistake and frustration] is ... that both doctrines are concerned with the allocation of risk of unforeseen events." Ewan McKendrick Contract Law: Text, cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP, 2005) p.636. Discuss, with reference to relevant case law. 8 May 2007 This essay will examine the doctrine of frustration and the common mistake doctrine with focus upon the allocation of risk of unforeseen events. It will be shown how important it is to analyse risk clearly and adequately in drafting of contracts and that the negotiators should always ask themselves the crucial question1: "Who should bear the risk that it may prove impossible to perform this contract?" Contract law is founded on the principle that liability for non-performance is strict. While this seems quite harsh, it is substantiated with the belief that parties receive valuable consideration for taking risks. The allocation of risks "provides a major function of the law of contract: it enables individuals and corporations to plan for the future with a moderate degree of certainty and hence to maximise their freedom of action."2 Both doctrines are concerned with the impossibility of performance of the contract. In Great Peace3 the Court of Appeal considered that common mistake is analogous to the
Valley Homes v. Ace Minerals Corp.
Valley Homes v. Ace Minerals Corp. Jones is a young, recently hired female salesperson working for Valley Homes, a small company manufacturing and selling prefabricated dwellings. They sell primarily to people wanting to build their own cabins and summer homes. Jones' job consists in working out the designs with the customers, pricing that design, and then working out the specifics with the engineering section, which develops plans and sets out the exact specifications for the production of the dwelling. She then follows up with the customer, even providing a contractor to build the dwelling if needed. A large mining company, Ace Minerals Corporation, as part of the development of a huge mineral deposit in northern Manitoba had to build a townsite for the miners and their families consisting of some 50 dwellings as well as a sports and recreation complex. Under the supervision of the vice-president of finance, Li, Ace Minerals published a request for tenders for the supply and erection of these 50 homes and recreation centre. Upon request Ace provided the specifications and the other details of the tendering process, including a statement that (1) once submitted the bid could not be withdrawn before the formal opening of all the bids (2) the lowest bid would be accepted, following the standard practice in the industry. Jones obtained these details and brought them
Contract Assignment.
Contract Assignment Elizabeth Pearce This problem question contains various issues that need to be explored. However, it is apparent that the primary concern is one of liability. The major question that needs to be answered is whether Smart Co can claim damages for the defective computer and whether Bright Co are liable for this. Thus it needs to be ascertained whether the terms implied by sections 13-15 of the Sale of Goods Act have been breached, and if so, whether the standard terms which contained the clause in question were incorporated into the contract. The issue of the extent of contractual liability for a breach often raises a question as to the effectiveness of an exemption clause. In this question we are specifically dealing with a limitation clause. An exemption clause is a term in a contract purporting to exclude or restrict the liability of one of the parties in specified circumstances; usually breach of contract, or other liability arising through tort, bailment or by statute. 'Exclusion' clauses are restricted to those clauses which remove, or purport to remove, liability. As mentioned, in this problem we are dealing with a limitation clause. A limitation clause is used solely for those clauses which do not remove, or purport to remove, liability entirely but, for
Essay on Construction Contract scenario. Ram Solutions (The Contractor), delivering a 15m new build science centre (The Project) on an existing occupied secondary school site for Southampton City Council (The Client), within the UK.
In submitting this assignment, I certify that all this material is my own work, except where I have indicated otherwise with appropriate references. The steps you are required to take in constructing your Practical Scenario assignment are provided below as an aid to organising your answer. For example, you might like to use these points as a basis for section headings. ) Give an outline of the project that is the focus of your practical scenario, in order to provide a context for your responses to the following: [5 marks] 2) Drawing on your practical scenario: a) Describe the basis on which your contract selection was made and evaluate how well the contract generally performed against your contract selection criteria. [25 marks] b) List the aspects of design liability that were dealt with under the contract, explaining why each was regarded as a significant feature of the project. [20 marks] c) How was risk apportioned in the contract? Evaluate the extent to which the contract provisions met the actual on-site conditions encountered. [20 marks] d) What unforeseen problem(s) arose? [30 marks] i) Explain the basis for your choice of conflict management technique to settle the problem. Assuming the problem escalates into a full-blown dispute: ii) Identify and justify a choice of a preferred dispute resolution technique. iii) Analyse how the parties are likely
Brief description regarding the case B asically, this situation starts with the offer of a contract to build a factory at the cost of RM 500,000 from Mario Ltd to Jackie Ltd on 1st March 2010. In the offer, Mario Ltd requested the reply should be sent i
Introduction - Brief description regarding the case B asically, this situation starts with the offer of a contract to build a factory at the cost of RM 500,000 from Mario Ltd to Jackie Ltd on 1st March 2010. In the offer, Mario Ltd requested the reply should be sent in the return of post. However, a mistake in the address of the letter caused the letter did not reached Jackie Ltd until 6th March 2010.After the letter received, Jackie Ltd replied that they agrees for the offer. The letter then was posted at 1 p.m on 6th March 2010. Mean while, Mario Ltd received an offer from Bobby Ltd stating that they can build the factory at the cost of RM 450,000. Then, Mario Ltd contacted Bobby Ltd on 5th March 2010 and came up with an offer with the amount of RM 400,000. After Mario Ltd hearing nothing from Jackie Ltd, Bobby Ltd agreed for the offer. Later on, on 6th March 2010, a fax was sent by Mario Ltd to Jackie Ltd stating that the offer of 1st March 2010 was cancelled. The fax was received on Jackie Ltd's fax machine at 12.45 p.m on the same day, which was 6th March 2010. However, the fax not read by anyone until 5 p.m on the same day. So, the problem arise in this situation whatever the contract formed Jackie Ltd with Mario Ltd or between Bobby Ltd and Mario Ltd. One of the notable things we have to consider in this case is there was no any date fixed for the acceptance to
