The Doctrine of Precedent and Contradicting Statement in the US Contract Law - Assignment Example

? Business law: Case Studies Question It is evident from the case scenario that the hotel management has no responsibility for the money and other valuables of Freda. The hotel management had displayed a warning notice on the back of the door which says “The Gullies Hotel and its management would not be held liable for the safety of any valuable left in the guest’s room. The hotel has safe deposit boxes at the reception”. This theft warning notice is valid and hence Fred was supposed to deposit her money and jewelries in the boxes at the reception. By giving a proper theft warning, the hotel management informed the guest regarding the possibility of theft and therefore the Gullies Hotel is free of any liability arising out of the theft of Freda’s money and jewelries. In this context, what LaMance points out is relevant. According to him, a hotel has to take a set of legal measures to avoid liability. If the hotel management fails to take adequate measures to ensure the safety of its guests, then the hotel management would be held liable for its negligent acts. First, the hotel management should be able to anticipate possible safety threats within the hotel environment. If the hotel is really aware of the degree of intensity of criminal acts, it can take adequate safety measures to address those issues. As LakMance proposes, the hotel management can install surveillance cameras or hire more security guards to ensure the safety of guests and their valuables. In addition to anticipating risk factors, the hotel should communicate proper warning to guests to make them aware of the safety threats identified. Finally, hotels have also the responsibility to maintain their properties properly. To illustrate, easy access windows and faulty door locks may sometimes assist criminals to break into rooms. Hence, the hotel management has to make certain that its properties are managed properly. In the Freda case, there is a possibility to argue that the Gullies Hotel management did not take adequate measures to ensure the safety of the guest’s valuable even though the management has been aware of the theft issues within the hotel environment. However, it must be noted that the Gullies’ management had arranged special facilities at the reception for keeping the valuables of their clients. Despite theft warning and special security facilities, Freda left the hotel leaving cash and expensive jewelries in her room and this negligence resulted in the theft of her valuables. Question 2 The doctrine of precedent is one of the fundamental and oldest features of the English legal system. In addition, it is considered to be the heart of the common law system. “The doctrine of precedent states that a decision made by a court in one case is binding on other courts in later cases involving similar facts” (as qtd in Harris199). The most potential benefit of the doctrine of precedent is that it promotes uniformity within the law. More precisely, it meets the general conception of justice by treating similar cases in the similar manner. The basic concepts of the doctrine of precedent have been well stated and are easy to understand. According to this doctrine, as Harris points out, all courts must adhere to the previous decisions made by superior courts in similar cases. The second rule of the doctrine of precedent sates that current decisions made by courts will be applied to all future cases which have similar facts (199-200). However, law experts argue that this feature may lead to interpretation difficulties for the courts. As discussed already, adherence to precedent is helpful to maintain a system of stable laws, which in turn promotes the predictability of laws and provides individuals with a greater degree of security. As legal advisors point out, the doctrine of precedent is essential to make certain that laws develop in accordance with changing views of the society only and hence laws clearly reflect morals and expectations of the society as well. Since the doctrine of precedent promotes consistency and certainty of laws, it can assist individuals to meet the requirements of the predictable law. Logical evolution of law is another potential benefit of this legal principle. Under this doctrine, the law develops gradually based on real life cases rather than theories. In addition, this rule notably contributes to the flexibility of the legal system. Court practices based on the doctrine of precedent can be adaptable to changing circumstances and hence adherence to this rule is effective to avoid future conflicts to a great extent. Evidently, this rule is vital to ensure that citizens are treated equally. Some experts point that this doctrine is really beneficial to avoid long delay involved in making decisions on court cases. Finally, it adds value to the transparency and authenticity of court decisions. To illustrate, Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 has been set to be the precedent for future case involving similar facts. This 1973 court ruling supports a woman’s right to choose abortion as a fundamental constitutional right. In spite of the controversies raised by this decision and strong arguments for its repudiation, US courts still follow this decision while deciding on abortion cases (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania). Similarly, cases such as Daniels V. White (1938) and Grant V. Australian Knitting Mills are some prominent examples for the applicability of the doctrine of precedent. Question 3 a. There is no agreement between the Electronics Ltd and Andy. In order to form a valid agreement, there must be a valid offer and valid acceptance. The case context clearly reflects that there was no valid offer from Electronic Ltd and the salesperson was just informing Andy about the company’s price patterns. One of the essentials of a valid offer is that the offeror’s intention must be to form legal relationship with the offeree. Therefore an offer to be valid, it must intend to obtain the assent of the other party. It is to be specifically noted that a mere expression of intention does not constitute an offer. Referring to the case scenario, it is very clear that the salesperson’s words constituted a mere expression of his intension (which was to inform Andy the price pattern of iPhone 5) but not a valid offer. However, Andy misunderstood the salesperson’s words and thought that the salesperson had made an offer. Here, obviously the salesperson’s intention was not to obtain the assent of Andy because the product demanded (iPhone 5) by Andy was out of stock then. In the absence of a valid offer, there is no legal relationship between the Electronics Ltd and Andy. b. There is no agreement between Electronics Ltd and Brad because there was no valid acceptance from the part of Brad. The salesperson told Brad that he would sell that Nokia phone for ?300. Evidently, the offer is valid because it was made with a view to obtain the assent of Brad. In other words, the salesperson’s intention was to form a legal relationship with Brad. However, the offer was revoked when Brad made a counter offer by saying that he would buy the product for ?250. In order to be a valid acceptance, the offer must be accepted exactly and without any modification. When the offeree proposes any change to the original offer, he/she actually rejects the original offer and therefore it is no longer in existence. It must also be noted that the original offer cannot be accepted at a future time if it has been revoked by a counter offer. In this case, Brad modified the original offer made by the salesperson by proposing new terms, and hence it is no longer valid. Simply, Brad rejected the original offer and hence there is no legal relationship between Electronics Ltd and Brad. c. While analyzing the given case context, it seems that there is no agreement between Electronics Ltd and Carl. In response to a question of Brad, the salesperson replied that he would sell that Nokia phone to Brad for ?300. Hence, it seems that the offer made by the salesperson was an offer to a definite person (Brad). A third party cannot accept an offer made to a definite person. More clearly, the salesperson had not made the offer in order to obtain the assent of Carl or he did not have any intention of forming a legal relationship with Carl. d. From the case scenario, it seems that there was a valid offer and valid acceptance to form a valid contract between the Electronics Ltd and Dana. However, the company does not have a contract with Dana because she is only a 15 years old minor. It is clear that a minor cannot enter into a valid contract. In the United States, an individual becomes a legal adult only when he/she attains the age of 18. A minor is not liable to perform his/her duties arising out of the contract he/she entered into. Dana’s contract with the Electronics Ltd is void and therefore she shall not be held liable for her refusal to accept the item ordered on delivery. Question 4 As Lank, states, “consideration is defined as something of value offered by one party and accepted by another as an inducement to perform (or refrain from performing) some act” (Lank 213). In simple words, consideration can be stated as something promised, given, or done in exchange by each party to the agreement. Under the US contract law, for a consideration to be valid, it must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Apparently, it seems to be a contradicting statement. Whincup explains this; sufficiency of consideration means that consideration must have some economic value. At the same time, adequacy of consideration implies that consideration does not need to be equivalent to the promise it secures (76). Since consideration need not be adequate, even a token or one Pound is enough to form a valid consideration if this economic value is agreeable to the promisor. There will be no question of fraud even though the economic value of the consideration is very low as compared to the promise it secures. Using this rule, courts try to make sure that agreements are made voluntarily but not to investigate the economic soundness of those agreements. To illustrate, if ‘A’ promises to sell his brand new Mercedes Benz car to ‘B’ for an amount of ?1, it will be accepted to be a valid offer and A will be legally bound by that promise because money has certainly an economic value and hence it is always a good consideration. In this case, it would not be considered whether or not the consideration actually represents the car’s market value at that time. A major example for this general rule is the practice of offering tenders for ?1 to keep the tender open without any change. Paulger V. Butland Industries, 1989 is an example for a case on sufficiency of consideration. In this case, a company director guaranteed the creditor personally the payment within 90 days. The court ruled that there was an agreement between the company and the creditor because the director’s offer was impliedly accepted by the creditor for the consideration of not suing the company until the end of 90 days (cited in Whincup77). . In Pitt V. P.H.H Asset Management, 1993, the house seller promised a buyer not to offer a particular house to anyone within two days. It was held that the buyer gave consideration in response to the offer by promising to complete the purchase of that particular house during the period allowed (cited in Whincup77). However, past consideration is considered to be an insufficient consideration. For instance, suppose, A is away home and B decides to do a favor for A by watering A’s garden. Upon return, A gratefully promises B to pay him ?10 for his voluntary help. However, B cannot sue A for the money promised if B fails to pay it. It is necessary that the consideration should contribute to the agreement in some way or other and therefore performance of an existing duty is not considered as sufficient consideration to form a contract. It seems that consideration is a complex and conflicting part in the law and hence it is a challenging task for judges to form a sound judgment. Works Cited Harris, Phil. An Introduction To Law. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Lank, Edith. Essentials of New Jersey Real Estate. Dearborn Real Estate, 2004. Print. LaMance, Ken. Hotel Liability for Criminal Acts. LegalMatch. Web 5 July 2013 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Web 5 July 2013. Whincup, Michael. Contract Law and Practice: The English System With Scottish, Commonwealth and Continental Comparisons. Kluwer Law International, 2006. Print. Read More