The difficulty surrounding the existence of the parol evidence rule, is exemplified by the Law Commission Reports of 1976 and 1986;
The difficulty surrounding the existence of the parol evidence rule, is exemplified by the Law Commission Reports of 1976 and 1986; over ten years, two contrasting recommendations were issued on the validity of its functions and raison d'être. In order to assess the desirability of abrogating1 or conserving2 the parol evidence rule in English law, it will be first necessary to examine the statement of the rule before considering the arguments in favour and against the abolition of the rule. It will also be necessary to examine the scope of the rule and trends in other jurisdictions in order to come to a reasonable decision. In essence, the effect of the parol evidence rule is to exclude extrinsic evidence that would add to, vary or contradict the terms of a written agreement3. Thus, the rule can only be applied where the parties have entered a written contract4. The rule has no application until it is determined that the terms of the parties' agreement are wholly contained in the written document.5 The raison d'être of the rule is said to be the promotion of certainty; that is to say, once the parties have reduced the contract to writing they should be bound by the writing and the writing alone6. This prevents one of the parties from alleging that there were other terms that were never incorporated into the final document. The parol evidence rule, as traditionally applied,
In the present contract dispute it is essential to determine which company has a valid simple contract with Beef Disposals LTD.
In the present contract dispute it is essential to determine which company has a valid simple contract with Beef Disposals LTD. It is important to establish when an offer was made and when it was accepted, these are the essential ingredients of a valid contract. It follows that the Advertisement, the letter posted by Beef Disposals LTD (the fact it is wrongly addressed), the revocation are all problems emanating from the facts of the present dispute. Therefore an analysis of specific legal issues surrounding these problems is required before a contract law solution is concluded. Beef Disposals LTD placed an advertisement for a service, Plant Services LTD is one of several to respond & negotiations begin. Will the advertisement by Beef Disposals LTD be construed as an offer? Generally advertisements are viewed as an invitation to treat, although intentions of the contracting parties are taken into account. E.g. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 ALL ER 421, where an advertisement in a newspaper was found not to be an offer but an invitation that was to elicit negotiations... An offer is distinguished from an invitation to treat, "which is an invitation to others to make offers". One definition of an offer is, "An offer is an expression of a willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention that a binding agreement will exist once the offer is accepted". In
'English law probably does and certainly should recognise a duty to bargain in good faith.' Discuss.
'English law probably does and certainly should recognise a duty to bargain in good faith.' Discuss. In many legal systems there exists a duty for the parties to act in good faith, however English Law has not explicitly adopted this principal. In this essay I will examine whether such a duty exists in English Law and if such a duty is necessarily desirable. The common law has a reluctance to impose pre-contractual obligations. The main reason for this is to protect the parties' freedom of contract. Were obligations to arise as soon as negotiations have started then parties may find that they have accepted upon themselves obligations without even realising that this was the case. The law also wishes to protect parties' room for manoeuvre and its freedom to bargain and a party needs to be able to revoke an offer right until the last moment prior to acceptance. A further argument is that a duty to disclose all relevant information, removes any incentive for competitive information gathering, which would mean that a company which has a greater understanding of the specific market conditions, might no longer be able to use this information to its own advantage. Another argument against such a principle is that it is difficult to know what exactly it means. Is it for example contrary to good faith to negotiate concurrently with several parties in relation to the same contract
Casenote: Foley v. Classique Coaches, Limited
CASENOTE: Foley v. Classique Coaches, Limited REPORTED: [1934] 2 K.B. 1, 103 L.J.K.B. 550; 151 L.T. 242] COURT: Court of Appeal JUDGES: Lords Scrutton, Greer, and Maugham DATE: 15, 16, March 1934 FACTS: A contract made on the sale of land, which was alongside other land belonging to the plaintiff, which the defendants intended to use for their business as motor coach proprietors. The sale would go through as long as the defendants brought all the petrol they required from the plaintiffs" at a price to be agreed by all the parties in writing and from time to time", this was described as a supplemental agreement to the prior agreement formulated. Further agreements were laid down saying that the defendants would *2 purchase no petrol from any other person so long as the plaintiff was able to supply them with the quantities sufficient to satisfy their daily requirements. Clause 8 stated the following: "if any dispute or difference shall arise on the subject matter or construction of this agreement the same shall be submitted to arbitration in the usual way in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889." The sale went through, and the defendants purchased petrol from the plaintiffs for three years. After this period a few problems arose and the defendants tried to repudiate the second agreement, alleging that it had no binding force. ARGUMENT: The
Offer and Acceptance
(a) Jenny sent a letter to Sarah on September 1st, offering to sell her car for £3,000. Sarah posted her reply on September 6th, accepting Jenny's offer. On September 7th Sarah changed her mind and telephoned Jenny to tell her she would not be able to accept the offer. Jenny, who had not then received Sarah's letter of acceptance, insisted that Sarah could not withdraw her written acceptance and that she was therefore contractually bound to purchase the car. Advise Sarah. Jenny's letter to Sarah constitutes an offer to sell her car for the sum of £3000. Sarah's letter in reply constitutes the acceptance of that offer so that a contract between the two forms on the agreed terms. The postal rule states that an acceptance takes effect so that there is a binding contract from the moment the acceptance is put into the hands of the postal service1. Therefore, the current legal position is that Sarah is contractually bound to purchase the car; her purported retraction of acceptance is ineffective and by making it she is in breach of contract. It is submitted, however, that she should not be. By demonstrating the inadequacy of the vast majority of the reasoning in support of the postal rule Evans2 argues convincingly that to avoid unfairness in many situations the single postal rule needs to be replaced by individual rules, each dealing with its own situation, to better protect
Duress and the Voluntariness of Ordinary People
Duress and the Voluntariness of Ordinary People English contract law has based its fundamental doctrine of existence on the idea of voluntariness and freedom of choice. A contract which lacks such choice is often said to be obtained by some form of duress. The only problem with this analogy is that, to some degree, most contracts are made under duress. Duress which is unavoidable. Firms often have a monopoly, like the utilities such as gas, electricity and water industries, where freedom of choice is non-existent. What distinguishes this from duress actionable by the courts is the courts interpretation of the legality of the duress.Duress that is illegal in the common law has evolved into three main areas in the last twenty years but for much of its previous existence was defined on very narrow lines. Duress of the person, a long established principle, involved either threats of or actual violence to the contracting party. The violent act must be illegal but does not have to be the main reason or only reason the contract was entered into. It is for the defence to prove such threats made no contribution to the other parties will. It must be stressed that the act must be illegal so a threat to sue would be justified if it were true. The principles of duress of the person have been given in a Privy Council case Barton-v-Armstrong which, although not a binding precedent, would be
Dispute Summary
Dispute Summery Anthony Goodeill LAW 529- Legal Environment of Business Gale Francis May 5, 2007 Dispute Summary The dispute that I chose to write about was a dispute that occurred at my previous place of employment. This dispute was between an employee and the company. This employee was employed at a call center as a Corporate Webmaster. The call center team that he worked for started the process of a suit against him. The dispute was that the company believed that the former employee had violated a non-compete contract that the employee had signed when he became an Information Technology employee with the company. By signing this agreement the employee agreed that the company's clients and confidential information pertaining to them comprised a substantial part of the goodwill of its business; protection of goodwill is of particular importance in such business; and she had no proprietary interest in the company's business. The employee also promised to devote full-time and best efforts to the company's business and the related business interests of its corporate affiliates; acknowledged that, as part of his employment he would have access to and become acquainted with the company's confidential information relating to the company's present and future clients, companies from which the company obtained or would obtain designs for its clients, and the graphics for
Criminal Law - Essay - Non-pecuniary loss
"The law on damages for anxiety, disappointment and so on consequent upon breach appears to have travelled a full circle from the holiday cases of Jarvis and Jackson and back to the principles in these cases." Discuss. The law is not static and certain areas of law have been subject to much change. One of these areas, the law on damages for anxiety and disappointment in contract law, will be the subject of this essay. In particular, the changing scope of the importance of a contract's object being pleasure or relaxation in order to be able to reward damages for mental distress will be examined. This essay will firstly explore the origin of the general rule from the case Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd1: that damages are not available for non-pecuniary losses. Then, the so called 'holiday cases' Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd2 and Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd3 which gave rise to some exceptions to the general rule laid down in Addis will be covered. Following this, the various cases which changed the scope for awarding such damages since Jarvis and Jackson in the 1970s up to the present law under Farley v Skinner4 will be discussed, forming the main body of the essay. It will ultimately be argued that the law has now, since the ruling of Farley, arrived in a very similar state to the one it had been in the 1970s. Finally, it is submitted that the development of this area of law has
Exclusion Clauses and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 case question.
Zero Plc is a large company specialising in the sale and supply of office equipment. Heather is the owner of a small estate agency company called Cellsoon Ltd. In the past, Heather has purchased a number of items of office equipment for her company from Zero Plc. Zero Plc regularly sends copies of its promotional literature to Cellsoon Ltd detailing the range of products which it offers and the different purchase options provided. Zero Plc provides five different purchase options which vary in price depending upon the amount of after-sales service provided and the extent of the liability accepted by the company. The company's literature also states that "Full details of our terms and conditions can be obtained by written request to our Head Office". One day, Heather's office telephone switchboard broke down. Heather urgently needed a replacement and so telephoned Zero Plc. Heather orally agreed to purchase a suitable "low cost" office switchboard machine for Cellsoon Ltd with no after-sales service being provided by Zero Plc. A copy of the printed terms and conditions was subsequently delivered with the machine. Heather noticed a clause in these terms and conditions which stated: "The liability of the company for loss or damage howsoever caused shall be limited to the sum of £1,000. The benefit of this clause shall extend to the company's employees." Three weeks after
Breach of contract
Assessment Question Component two When a contract has arisen between two parties, there is an offer that has been accepted which is supported by consideration with the intention to create legal relations (providing they have the capacity to do so.) Once these four categories have been fulfilled, they are bound to the terms within and are expected to perform their obligations. In our case it is clear that Transfix has contracted with both Mega ltd and Cad Co, to perform necessary work and has provided consideration with the intention to pay £6000 to Mega Ltd and £600 to Cad Co therefore the problems that occur within the case do not involve the formation of the contract as they have satisfied criteria for formation. It is possible for either one of the parties to add or remove something from the originals terms, these are known as modifications, and modifications are similar to formation in that they need an offer which is accepted supported by sufficient consideration. The two main forms of modifications are positive and negative. The first modification that occurred was between Transfix and Mega Ltd. Transfix originally agreed to pay £6000 for the work contracted to Mega Ltd however under financial burden they were unable to pay this price and had requested to pay £4000 (the offer). Whilst Mega Ltd had accepted the reduced price there may be a problem with the issue of
