![Contract Law - "The decision of the Court in Williams v Roffey Bros. [(1991) 1 QB 1, Court of Appeal].](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/55682/listing/55682_1.jpg)
Contract Law - "The decision of the Court in Williams v Roffey Bros. [(1991) 1 QB 1, Court of Appeal].
Contract Law. First assessed essay. "The decision of the Court in Williams v Roffey Bros. [(1991) 1 QB 1, Court of Appeal] which suggests that performance of an existing (contractual) duty can constitute consideration where it results in 'practical benefit' to the promisor creates further ambiguity in the scope of consideration in English contract law." Discuss. Consideration is the essential part of the contract that comprises a legal agreement. English law requires that in all contracts other than those by deed both parties have to bring something to the agreement i.e. provide consideration to the bargain according to the "benefit - detriment" scheme. This aspect is explained by Sir Fredrick Pollock's definition in Dunlop v. Selfridge1: "An act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is brought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable." One of the fundamental judicial rules relating to it is that the performance of already existing contractual duty owed to the promisor is not sufficient consideration (based on Stilk v. Myrick2). However, in Williams v. Roffey Bros.3, quite unusual interpretation was expounded by the Appeal Court judges, putting thereby the classical doctrine of consideration under strain. It was held that where a party (Roffey Bros.) to an existing contract later agrees to pay an
Discuss the development of doctrine of frustration regard to the law of contact
The general rule of contract law before 1863 was absolute contractual responsibility is bound by the parties once the contract is made and there would be no excuse for non-performance. This absolute contract rule was founded by the judges in Paradine v. Jane1 where a tenant was sued for the rent due and pleaded that he was held out of possession of the premises due to the invasion of the enemy. He claim that the rent was not due as he was deprived from the lease. The court held that he is obliged to perform his duty. "When the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he may, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract. And therefore if the lessee covenant to repair a house, though it be burnt by lightning, or thrown down by enemies, yet he ought to repair it."2 This doctrine works well on reasonable and ordinary situation however it poses problems under supervening events which changes the situation drastically. The doctrine of frustration was introduced in Taylor v. Caldwell3 as the exception of the existing law to reconcile the situation where justice demands. It was stated by Blackburn J. "in contract in which performance depends on the continued existence of the given person or thing, a condition is implied that the impossibility of performance
Exclamation clause relating common law
SECTION A: TO BE COMPLETED BY STUDENT * This assignment cover sheet needs to be included with each assignment. Please complete all details clearly. * If you are submitting your assignment on paper, please staple this sheet to the front of each assignment. * If you are submitting your assignment online, please ensure this cover sheet is included in front your assignment. * Please check your study guide for assignment submission deadline and information. Family Name DOAN Given Names THAI BAO NGOC (GEM) Program/Intake & your program manager DIP13B/ INTAKE 13/ SANDY CHOW Student No. DIPBA1321 Module/Course/Unit DIP13B/ BUSINESS LAW Lecturer MR. ROBIN PETER LANGE Assignment No. Assignment Due Date 6th of December 2009 DECLARATION: I hereby declare that the attached assignment is my own work. I understand that if I am suspected of plagiarism or another form of cheating, my work will be referred to the Academic Review Committee/Registrar, which may result in me being expelled from the program. Signature Submission Date 6th December 2009 EXEMPTION CLAUSES RELATING COMMON LAW NAME: DOAN THAI BAO NGOC (GEM) CLASS: DIP BA/INTAKE 13TH SUBJECT: BUSINESS LAW LECTURER: MR. ROBIN PETER LANGE QUESTION 1 Discussion of Exemption Clauses Relating To The Common Law Common law can be seen as cases between parties who might involve in expressing terms of contract
Consideration - a Necessary Element of Australian Contract Law
CONSIDERATION - A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF AUSTRALIAN CONTRACT LAW Introduction Consideration is a key element of Australian contract law. Critics have argued that some of the requirements which consideration imposes on contracting parties can bring about injustice, and that reform is necessary. Examination of the role consideration plays in contract law, however, shows that reform is likely to be socially and economically detrimental, and that a more appropriate response is to address injustice through legislation. What is consideration and what role does it play in Australian contract law? Consideration requires that both parties to a contract to either do something or promise to do something with the intention of creating a legally binding contract.1 Confirmation of consideration is essential.2 There are two types of consideration. Executory consideration (or a bilateral contract) involves the exchanging of mutual promises.3 Executed consideration is a contract in which performance of an act constitutes acceptance (a unilateral contract.)4 Consideration must fulfil two main requirements. Firstly, a 'quid pro quo' exchange must take place.5 This ensures a clear distinction between a bargain and a conditional gift.6 Consideration must also involve a detriment to the promisee of a benefit to the promisor.7 There will be no bargain if an exemption clause excludes the
This question concerns the law relating to offers and invitations to treat, in particular advertisements. I will be discussing the distinction between the both and how this applies to the question concerned.
Question 1 This question concerns the law relating to offers and invitations to treat, in particular advertisements. I will be discussing the distinction between the both and how this applies to the question concerned. A genuine offer must be distinguished from an 'invitation to treat' i.e. where a party is merely inviting offers, which he is then free to accept or reject. Invitations to treat are pre-contractual negotiations taking place during the course of an agreement. They differ from offers in that they are not legally binding; therefore identifying the legal status of the statement will depend on the application of the common law rules which distinguish an offer from an invitation to treat. An offer may be defined as a statement of willingness to contract on specified terms made with the intention that, if accepted, it shall become a binding contract. An offer can be addressed to one particular person, a group of persons, or the world at large, as in an offer of a reward. One area of the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat has risen in advertisement. Advertisement of goods or services for sale are normally construed as invitations to treat. Here a contract will not be formed until the person seeing the advertisement has made an offer to buy, which has then been accepted. As determined in Partridge v Crittenden (1968)1 it was held to be an
Contract law - Unfair terms.
Contract law -- Unfair terms It is commonplace for a party drawing up a contract to seek to minimise the amount of liability that may be incurred in the performance of that contract. Contractual clauses that have this effect are usually called `exclusion clauses' or `limitation clauses'. There is a whole academic debate about the doctrinal significance of these clauses in the law of contract. This debate centres on whether they are `defensive' or `obligation defining' in nature. This is of little practical significance, because the courts and, more recently, the legislature have come down in favour of the `defensive' interpretation. Arguably, this `defensive' view is more prevalent in the UK than the European Community (EC), and this may account for some of the problems that are described in this article. Exclusion clauses often attempt to exclude or limit liability for losses arising out of breach of contract, or for extra-contractual liabilities. Extra-contractual liabilities will often include losses for misrepresentation, or negligence in performing the contract. In practice, most peoples' exposure to the sharp end of an exclusion clause is as a consumer in a sales or services transaction. For example, may of us who use public transport have experienced entering into contracts in which the service provider excludes liability for being unable to run a tolerably useful
The Decision Made by Rougier J inBernstein v Pamson Motors can lead to fundamental injustice for buyers of goods - Discuss.
The Decision Made by Rougier J in Bernstein v Pamson Motors can lead to fundamental injustice for buyers of goods. Discuss In a Sales of Goods Contract both the seller and the buyer are placed under certain obligations, that is to say they have certain duties to perform. If it is found that one of the parties has not performed their side of the bargain then the injured party will be entitled to claim damages for any loss resulting from such a breach. In some instances a party may, however seek a more powerful remedy that damages. This is apparent in situations where a buyer will seek to reject the goods and in doing so effectively repudiate or terminate the contract. A right of repudiation is generally found in circumstances where a condition of the contract has been breached. This is provided for in Section 11(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979; "a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, the breach of which may give rise to the right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a warranty the breach of which may give rise to a claim for damages but not a right to reject goods and treat the contract as repudiated." Within the Act there are several implied terms that can be construed to favour the buyer if one of these terms is broken it is clear that the classification of such a term is important in determining the remedy that will be available. Thus those terms, which
Consumer law : offer and acceptance on claim
Consumer law : offer and acceptance on claim To establish whether James has a case against 'Detox Ltd' we have to find evidence of a contract between himself and 'Detox Ltd'. Contracts are generally formed when two parties exchange promises and have reached agreement. This exchange has to have been formed on the basis of an 'offer' by one party and an 'acceptance' by another with the 'intent' to form a bilateral contract which is legally binding. The intent is generally regarded as being objective, with the court looking at what is said and done rather than trying to piece together what went on in the minds of the people involved. See Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 ALL ER 972. However, advertisements such as 'Detox's' do not require any communicated acceptance: A poster asking for the apprehension of a criminal and upon that apprehension a reward is given is referred to, as a unilateral contract. This is because no one actually has to look for the criminal, no promise is made to do so, no one is legally bound to do so, it is said 'to be an offer to the whole world'. One party with no need for any other negotiations makes the reward or offer. The 'acceptance' of this type of contract is in the actual performance, or specified conduct, which is required to receive the reward, looking for, finding, and then delivering to the offeror. See Errington v Errington [1952] 1
This problem question, regarding D & M Rewards, concerns the area of Contract Law. The main issues raised within this area are of offer and acceptance, the intention to create legal relations, method of communication and consideration
L aw of Contract Assignment Question This problem question, regarding D & M Rewards, concerns the area of Contract Law. The main issues raised within this area are of offer and acceptance, the intention to create legal relations, method of communication and consideration. If the leaflet is believed to be an offer, then the point at which the leaflet becomes part of a legally binding contract must also be identified. Treitel defined a contract as being: "...an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law. The factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal obligations is that they are based on the agreement of the contracting parties."1 It must first be established whether the leaflet would be considered, by the reasonable person, to be an invitation to treat or an offer. As shown in Partridge v Crittenden2, it is not always easy to distinguish between the two, although it is imperative to do so. The case of Partridge v Crittenden3 concerns an edition of 'Cage and Avery Birds' which advertised Bramblefinches for sale at a price of 25s each, contrary to the Protection of Birds Act 1954. The seller was charged under the Act, on the grounds that the advertisement was thought to be an offer for sale. The Court held that the advertisement was not an offer, but it was an invitation to treat and so the advertiser was not convicted. An
Contract Law - Problem Question
Obligations I Assessment Two A contract is a legally enforceable promise or an agreement. In order to establish a contract a number of preconditions must be satisfied; offer, acceptance, consideration (degree of value), certainty and intention to create legal relations. It has already been established that a binding contracts exists between Geraldine and Leo, and Geraldine and Fred. However a number of legal issues are evidently illustrated in this case with regards to the termination of these contracts. In the first part of this essay I will consider the contract terms between Geraldine and Leo; analysing whether a termination was justified and the effects of the termination in relation to remedies. In the second part I will analyse the contract between Geraldine and Fred; whether the contract was frustrated and if the contract was not, what claims Fred will be able to bring against Geraldine. Before we examine whether the termination was justified it is important to determine whether the use of Victorian style lights were an expressed or implied term of the contract. Express terms are those the courts find have been specifically agreed by the parties, and can be made orally and/or in writing. According to authority in L'Estrange v. F Graucob Ltd [1934]1, if it is a signed contract, there is the assumption that the contents of that contract are express terms. Since Leo is
