Contract Law assignment question - Essay Example

Contract Law Assignment 1. Introduction A contract according to English and common law is a legal binding containing exchange of promises between the parties involved. The law will enforce the contract if any of the parties breach the contract. The breach of the contract can be recognised by the law and the remedies were provided in the law to make up the loss for the victim. The contract law can be classied as civil law and law of obligations. The most important features in the contract is offer and acceptance. These two in a combined state can be called a concurrence of wills or a meeting of the minds. If there is any breach of the contract the victim must manifest or prove that there is a contract between them in the past regarding the topic. The offer and acceptance will bring in objective perspective between the parties.1 The contract involves different contexts. The finality as to price is one of such things. This deals with the provision of reasonable price that can cure the deficiencies of many sale of goods contracts. Two parties can enter into an agreement for a transaction of the future with presently decided price. The persons involved in arragnging the contract are given commission as per the law. This is accordign to sales of goods act 1893. In contract law there is chance of enquiry of legally binding relationship. This is other than offer and acceptance and consideration is identified in the intention of the parties for legal relations. When the parties put their intentions on the paper and enter into an agreement then the court will treat it as an contract. The another context that deals with breach of promises is estoppel . It deals with the context in law that tries to avoid the detriment for the victim. The rule of law and equity estoppel has enough role to play in the case of execution of bonds and oral agreements. When there is no written agreement regarding the non-enforcement of the bond the defendant will be kept on the mercy of plaintiff. The common law grants right to enforce the agreement or bond on defendant if he did not make any written agreement that amounts to promise from the side of the plaintiff. When expectation thesis is considered estoppel was supported in the judgment of Dixon J in Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Limited. 2 2. Consideration of Contract Law When the execution of the contract was considered the duty of the promise under legal and contractual means will come under consideration. This is dealt under 1. legal duty, 2. duty arises from the contract, 3. the duty arised from the contract. According to the UK law commission recommendations the consideration of the duty must not be against the law and public policy. This point is derived from the traditional law. Under common law the term consideration is a controversial requirement for the contracts. This is considered controversial because this is not necessary in civil law systems and it is considered in law of obligations and the contexts involving the criminal offences. This controversial thing was introduced in the law because, both the parties that entered into a contract will bargain and this bargain will come to the fore or disappears when any one breaches the contract. So, in that context, if the situation does not come under civil law the consideration term is taken for perusal. This is for avoiding unnecessary or unintentional advantage for other party. In the case of Eastwood v. Kenyon the guardian of a young girl raised loan for her education. This is in the intention of improving her marriage prospects. After her marriage the court held that the husband need not pay the loan as the loan raised for the education of the girl was a past consideration. 3. Future Contract Two parties can enter into a future contract regarding sale and purchase. When a person is having enough goods that he can sell for reasonable profit after a certain time and a person who wants to make profit by buying certain goods after a period of time can make a future contract. The supplier must sell the goods by presently prescribed price in the future. The date, price will be decided by the parties who enter into a contract. Here the consideration context is perused in certain cases regarding the promises. In a case of British Bank for Foreign trade v. novinex Ltd in 1949 the court drew a distinction in the future contracts. The court made the future contract both sides executable. When one party completes the deal without the consent of the other party then he was at default and a reasonable penalty should be paid to the other party. The above mentioned type of contract law was being applied in the case of international transactions also. The contracts that are intended for the supply of goods to be produced are considered as sales. If the party who ordered the goods undertake to supply a reasonable part of the materials then it is not considered as sales in the international transaction. This is not applied to the contracts in which the previous parts of the obligations of the party that supplied the goods. If the goods consist the supply of labour and other services then it is not considered as a sales contract. 4. Doctrine of Estoppel It can be termed as locus classicus on the doctrine of estoppel by conduct in the common law countries particularly Australia and England. This is not supposed to use to the cause of expectation thesis. The purpose of estoppel was considered as uncontroversial by many. The reason is that it seeks to prevent detriment to those who act or abstain from acting on the faith of an assumption. The controversy if any lies in defining the detriment. The alternative that was favoured by the theorists of reliance is identifying the detriment against the protection that estoppel seeks. The reason is the abandonment of the assumption that induced it. The change of position causes the detriment in his opinion. The stipulation is that the party who altered his situation on the faith of it cannot complain. According to the above situation the promise cannot complain that his or her reliance was not reimbursed. This situation described above depends upon the proof of the defendant in making court to believe that the plaintiff promised the defendant about the abandonment of the bond or agreement. This is due to the fact that equity cannot recognise the detriment to B due to the act or omission by A. The law is that ‘the equity cannot recognise the failure to reimburse reliance as a detriment. 3 This is applicable as long as the assumption of performance is not deserted. The party who relied upon do not have a ground to complain till the promisor fails to perform according to his/her promise. The residue of the bonds is termed as valid until the completion of the stipulated time by the law and can enforce payment thereof. If the plaintiff contests for the payment from the defendant after the validity period of the bond, the defendant’s right of relief will considered to prevail. 4 The declaration in substance can aver a breach of the bond if the trustee had sold the conveyed property directed and not accounted for the proceedings. This can be termed as unfaithful according to the trust and confidence reposed in him. When the trustees disobey the laws by making deals violating them they are supposed to face the punishment, fine or both. 5 5. Sale and use of Property on the Name of the Minors and Infants When a trustee was entrusted with the sale of the property he was being trustee he is compelled to bring the money incurred from the sale to the court. Even the district level courts have no power to decree about the sale of the property that is on the name of the infants. This amounts to the responsibility on the part of trustees. If any court was proved in the higher court that the sale should made void, then the appointment of the trustees will be considered as nullity. According to the critical construction if the bill seeking the sale of a property for reinvestment is not mentioned in the will then there is no necessity to follow the decree of sale. One of the general jurisdiction is the district ocurt. The courts power regarding the equity over the persons and estates of infants is inherent and wide. The power over the real estate is comprehensive to decide on the maters like reinvestment though it manifests the interests of the minor. 6 6. Regarding the Rent In considering the rent activities also estoppel finds the application as it is a doctrine in the common law jurisdictions. This is recognised both at law and equity. This is devised to protect the interests of the party who faces detrimental consequences due to the execution of law or the deed. It is applicable in the cases of defendant has promised or done something to induce an expectation. The plaintiff relied on the expectation or gave concession. The estoppel should work on the basis of minimising or avoiding the genuine detrimental consequences to the plaintiff or defendant. Though courts recognised the defendant as an element, they decide upon the situation. If the plaintiff grants a concession in the rent where the tenant is the defendant, the defendant can avail the concession only in the circumstances that forced the plaintiff to grant the concession. When those circumstances will exist no more and the defendant is not in a position to face loss by paying the full rent the owner’s promise of giving concession cannot be considered by the courts and the law. 7 References The references were given in the following format Author, year, title, publisher, edition information, type of media, date retrieved, website address If any information in the above format is not available, it is mentioned or a gap is left 1. Michael G Pratt, 2000, Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment - A Reply to Denis Ong - [2000] BondLRev 4; (2000) 12(1) Bond Law Review 48, Bond Law Review, ,electronic, 17-1-07, http://beta.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLRev/2000/4.html. 2. HEDGES et al, 1893, HEDGES v. DIXON COUNTY, 150 U.S. 182 (1893, US supreme Court, ,electronic, 18-1-07, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=150&invol=182 3. US supreme court, 1910, U S, TO USE OF HINE, v. MORSE, 218 U.S. 493 (1910), US supreme court, ,electronic, 18-1-07, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=218&invol=493 4. Media wiki, 2007, Estoppel, Wikipedia the encyclopedia, ,electronic, 18-1-07, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel 5. media wiki, 2007, contract, wikipedia, ,electronic, 23-01-07, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Offer_and_acceptance 6. T. Slater & Charles W. Sloane, 2006, THE CANONICAL AND MORALIST DOCTRINE, the catholic encyclopaedia, ,electronic, 23-01-07, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04332a.htm Read More