Analysis of Contracts Law Cases - Essay Example

A contract delineates an agreement between two or more parties, which is enforceable by the law. Thus, a substantial number of contracts are guided based on common law. Conversely, the UCC’s article 2 governs contracts involving the sale of goods, negotiable instruments, and secured transactions. Incidentally, there are two types of contacts: written and oral. Nevertheless, more than often, a contract has to be in written form, for it to be legally enforced. Furthermore, it is expected that all the terms and conditions of a contract should be fulfilled by the parties subscribed to it.

If this happens, it implies that the contact is executed. However, this is not usually the case. Many are times when one of the parties to the contract does not fully commit themselves to the ultimate execution of the contract, prompting the other party to do away with it. In essence, such a contract becomes voidable. Moreover, the failure by one of the parties to execute a contract breaches it. In this regard, any contract, whose terms have been infringed by either of the parties, is eligible for legal settlement.

Thus, courts are mandated to settle contract disputes. In so doing, the court may impose various remedies. Such remedies include but are not inclined to cancel the contract, specific performance, punishments as well as damages of various forms. There exists a profusion of cases where courts have settled contract disputes. To begin with, a celebrity artist named Bruno Mars (whose real name is Peter Hernandez) sought court intervention in a contract dispute with his publishing company. In this case, the publishing company had declined to let go of Mars because he had not yet fully executed the terms of their contract.

The next case involves Garland Coal which entered into a contract with Peevyhouse, allowing them to mine coal on Peevyhouse’s land with the agreement that they would restore it on the completion of the mining activities. On the contrary, Garland Coal left the land without rejuvenating it as agreed. This prompted Peevyhouse to sue Garland seeking damages of $25,000. Instead, the jury granted $5,000 to Peevyhouse instigating Garland to appeal in turn. From the holding and the ultimate ruling of the case, it is apparent that, as much as courts are obliged to solve disputes arising from failure to fully execute a contract, they are bound to enforce the contract exclusively as it is.

That is to say, the law has no intention to ameliorate a contract in any way. The enforcement of the contract by the court should be within the framework established by the parties to the contract. Thus, no alterations of whatsoever form, or rather for whatsoever reasons should be made to the contract. The final case involves Hardly, who hired Baxendale to replace his broken mill’s shaft. Baxendale failed to take the shaft the following day as promised to make the mill inoperable for five days.