Contract Law/ Oral - Case Study Example

But the fact remains that at the time of alienation, the original buyer has every right to contemplate the terms of transaction and either accept or reject the offer. Hence, the first right of refusal of the contract lies with Paula and not with Alex. Clearly, the buyer Alex has violated the fundamental principles of contract and hence he is legally liable to Paula. Had Alex responded that he is not in acceptance of the payment terms made by Paula initially and hence he is withdrawing the offer, he would have been on the right side of the law.

Not having done that and on the contrary entering into an agreement for the same asset with a different buyer while keeping the offer open or in other terms having entered into an implicit contract earlier for the same asset has violated the fundamental principle of trust and hence Paula rightfully can claim damage. In the context of the above case, the case of Dunlop vs. Higgins can be referred, according to which the mode of acceptance as prescribed by the offeror was not adhered to. The communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the offeror. 2. (i) Alan have wilfully settled the debt under no duress and not implying any favour nor making it conditional that in a future point of date as and when John finds a meaningful employment he has to repay the balance.

So, Alan has lost the right to make any claims in the future and since it is his money which has the total ownership there can be no further claim against John. (ii) It is a verbal contract of sale wherein there is a consideration and transfer of ownership of assets. Hence it is an implied sale contract. Alan is bound by his promise unless he finds that the ownership of the law books lies with John. The case of Pinnel's Case can be referred as an example here wherein the debtor offers something other than money as payment and the creditor accepts this in full satisfaction of the debt. (iii) Even in this case Alan is bound by his promise.

As long as Alan does not clarify that the settlement is not conditional and the balance has to be paid on John finding a meaningful and gainful employment, Alan is bound by his promise. In this situation, the case of Hirachand Punamchand V Temple [1911] is something very relevant. In that particular case, if a third party pays part of the debt and the creditor promises not to sue the debtor for the balance, if the creditor goes back on his promise and sues the debtor for the balance, this would be a fraud on the third party (iv) No, Alan is not entitled to go back on his promise because when the settlement was made there was no condition which implied that payment has to be made as and when John has funds.

So, Alan does in no way have a right to make a claim against John just because John has funds and applying those funds for the sake of pleasure. Summary: While agreeing upon to make a settlement unless there are conditions clearly made out and accepted by all the parties involved in the contract it is assumed and taken that the transaction is closed in all respects and there can be no future liability whatsoever. 3. When Jim paid money to Speed link Ltd, he had made it in good faith and assumption that he and his family would embark on an enjoyable holiday and trusted Speed link Ltd, to make all necessary arrangements and paid the company in good faith fully.

The fact that the booking was not