Summary of a Contract Law Case - Assignment Example

?May it please the Court, my is Ramune Mickeviciute and my collegue is Gabriele Vaidogaite. We are counsels for the appellant-Mr Robbins. With your persmission your Honor, may I please give the summary of the present case: Robbins vs King The Plaintiff agreed to lend the Defendant King ? 37, 000 which was to be paid at an interest over the next three years. The Plaintiff had a relative- Mr. Zute who was ill and he made the Plaintiff to believe that upon his death he would inherit his entire Montgomerry Estate. However in order to inherit, the Plaintiff had to ensure that he only had assets worth less than ? 150, 000. Mr. Robbins sought the services of an accountant who estimated his total estate to be in the region of ? 165, 000. He then advised him to forego the remainder of the debt owed and instead accept ? 10 in full settlement of the debt. It later turned out that Mr. Zute, who was known for his practical jokes had played one on the Plaintiff and had not even included him in his will. The Plaintiff then decided to reactivate the loan agreement. Mr. King after being asked to only pay ? 10 in full settlement of the debt had gone on to renounce material wealth and donated all his wealth. The court held that according to the principle of estoppel, the debt had been extinguished and therefore the Plaintiff had been estopped from claiming further payment. It is our view that the ruling of the Court of Appeal represents a gross injustice to our client who is denied his right to claim further payment. We hereby invite the court to overule this decision and decide in our favour. In analysing this case, it is important to keep in mind the facts of this case. We shall look at several case laws while analysing this case. This case is more similar to Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 where the court raised the question as to the sufficiency of consideration. In deciding this case, the court relied on the principles of Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a: i. Where the matter paid and accepted in order to satisfy a debt might be more beneficial to the creditor than the debt, the court in such a case will not question the adequacy of the consideration. Here, it could be said that the matter being paid at that time would have been more beneficial to Mr. Robbins than fulifllment of the whole debt. ii. However, it should be noted that payment of a lesser sum cannot be satisfaction of the whole debt simply because it is impossible for a lesser sum to satisfy a greater sum. But Mr. Robbins also received payment in a lesser sum and therefore this cannot be said to have settled the whole debt. It should be noted that the law merely requires that consideration be sufficient and note necessarily adequate. This means that consideration must be something of value (Ollek). The same was reiterated by Jim Riley (2012) in his article Elements of Contract- he stated that parties in a contract must receive something of value to act as consideration. It is of paramount importance to make a mental note of the essential elements of a contract which includes consideration inter alia. For a contract to be valid all these elements must be present. In Robbins vs King, the subsequent agreement did not meet this criteria. Not all the essential elements of a contract were there and therefore it cannot be said that an agreement had been made. There lacked consideration. The debate concerning substitute agreements was put to rest by Lord Denning in D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617. In this case, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Rees who was a shop owner. The work done in the shop amounted to ? 746. Rees paid ? 250 and received a ? 14 discount thus leaving his debt to amount to ? 482. The Plaintiffs experienced financial difficulties and became desperate for the money. Fully aware of their financial position, Rees offered to pay ? 300 in full settlement of the debt. The Plaintiffs stated that this would not satisfy the debt but since they were in dire need of the money they simply had to agree to take it. They signed an agreement stating that the ?300 was in full settlement of the debt. The Plaintiffs later on sued for the balance. It is at this juncture where Lord Denning put this debate to rest when he stated that substitute contracts at common law are not allowed unless consideration is provided. However, substitute agreements can be valid in equity even if they lack consideration. In such cases, agreements made must have been relied upon by the debtor and it must be inequitable for the creditor to claim more. Under the law of equity, Mr. Robbins cannot claim further payment as this would be unequitable. However, he did not bring a suit under equity which according to Maitland is not bound by rules and precedents but by judge’s opinions (Maitland, 1908). He instead brought the suit under the law of contract where he can still claim. When discussing matters concerning economic relationships between persons, both legal rules and equitable rules at times become intermixed (http://www.pvamu.edu/pages/3121.asp).  It would be absurd to rely on the case of Williams v Roffey [1990] 1 All ER 512 mainly because parties entered into more than one agreements both of which conatined considerations. As opposed to the Robbins vs King case where Mr. Robbins and Mr. King did not enter into a subsequent agreement simply based on the fact that it could not amount to one. There was no consideration. Another case supporting our position is Re Selectmove [1995] 2 All ER 531. Here, a company owed tax to the “Inland Revenue” and  offered to pay in instalments. It was held that the Inland Revenue was not bound to accept payment in instalments. It was however bound to receive full payment. Mr Robbins is not bound by the fact that he had received payment though not in full. He is bound to receive full payment. Your honour, based on the arguments posed and for the reasons previously stated, we respectfully request that the Court find in favour of the appellant and agree that the contract is still valid and binding on Mr King to pay the rest of the debt which is ?33,257. References Riley, J (2012) Contract: Elements of a Contract http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-elements.html "Law" and "Equity" and Contracts- Prairie View A&M University http://www.pvamu.edu/pages/3121.asp Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 Williams v Roffey [1990] 1 All ER 512 Re Selectmove [1995] 2 All ER 531 Field, C (2010) The Law Handbook: Elements of a Contract. Fritzroy online legal services. Ollek, S E-Law: Essentials of a Contract http://www.e-law.bc.ca/art_essential.html Maitland, F. W. (1908) The Origins of Equity. Cambridge: University Press Buckland, W. and McNair, A. (1965) Roman Law and Common Law (Cambridge: University Press.) D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a Read More