The Contractual Matter between Nigella and Ramsay - Case Study Example

Contract Law: Case Study In this case study, Nigella had formed an agreement with Ramsay in which Nigella was supposed to teach Ramsay at an agreed cost of £25 per lesson. This contract was supposed to end after Ramsay completes the exam in January 2014. However, in November 2013 Nigella increased the cost of lesson she was offering Ramsay but since Ramsay was desperate for the services he accepted to pay the new rate for tutorials. The rationale for increasing the tuition charges for the services Nigella provided to Ramsay was the fame she had acquired in her career. After completing the exams in January 2014, Ramsay refused to pay her the new charges for the services provided. The discussion of this case study aims to provide the course of action for Nigella in regard to the legal position of this case. This case study presents the contractual matter between the Nigella and Ramsay. There was a valid agreement between the two parties, and consideration for Nigella to Ramsay was the teaching services she promised to offer to him. On the other hand, Ramsay’s promise to pay for the services constituted consideration of Ramsay to Nigella. When parties are in agreement they all have to discharge the obligations they owe each other until the end of the agreement. This implies that Ramsay was entitled to receive services from Nigella until the end of the agreement. However, this appears to carry periodic payments and the imposition of new prices by Nigella to Ramsay resulted to new conditions and that was tantamount to forming a fresh agreement. This implies that Ramsay was bound by the agreement since he agreed to pay even though he would refuse to pay if the examination was near. It is immaterial for Ramsay to decline to pay the additional charges for the services already offered. In Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 High Court, the High Trees had rented property from Central London Property (CLP) at a cost of £2,500 in 1937. However, during the world war the landlord was unable to let out all the houses and decided to reduce their value in order to attract new occupants. This compelled the defendant to lower the price of the houses by half in 1940 because there was no sign that the situation prevailing at that time was going to improve in the foreseeable future. By the start of 1941, the claimant started paying the reduced rental charges. However, when the war came to a halt the demand for houses increased hence the landlord reverted to the original rental charges. The case was presented to court, and Denning J issued a ruling that the landlord was obliged to charge the original rental fees only starting the time when the war came to a termination. No way could the landlord claim for the lost value accumulated during the period of war. Therefore, basing Nigella’s case on the case of “Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 High Court,” it is apparent that Nigella had right to claim for payment at the new rates as agreed in November. However, she cannot demand to receive payments for the entire tutorials under the new rate. She can sue Ramsay for refusing to pay the added amount for the period it was meant to apply in accordance to the new agreement. It is irrelevant that Ramsay was desperate and wanted to pass the exam. The case in “Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten [1955] 1 WLR 761 House of Lords,” estops Ramsay from failing to pay the amount he owed Nigella. In this case, Tungsten infringed TMM’s patent rights, but TMM requested for compensation in which he was supposed to receive ten percent as royalty and thirty percent as compensation for sales exceeding monthly sales of over fifty kilograms. However, Tungsten could not be able to pay the excess amount during the war and TMM waved the payments during the war. The House of Lords ruled estopped TMM form claiming for compensation foregone during the way period, but the claimant could request for compensation for the period after the war. The same ruling can e applied to estops Ramsay from declining to pay additional charges covering the period he was seriously preparing for the exam. If he was to continue receiving training after the exam, then he could refuse to pay for the new rates. Therefore, Nigella should sue Ramsay for the total amount as agreed but the new rate will only apply from November 2013, but before then the old rate applies. If Ramsay’s mother offers to clear the balance owned to Nigella by her son Nigella should take the money for the payment of her services to Ramsay. However, Nigella cannot sue Ramsay for the same value because the payment made by his mother is sufficient consideration. The rationale for this claim is based on the ruling by the court of appeal in the case of “Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 Court of Appeal.” In this case, the Hirachand Punamchand who was a money lender lent money to the defendant. The claimant asked for money from the defendant but was not given. Defendant’s father offered to clear the debt on behalf of his son, but he after accepting the proportion of money in clearance of the entire amount, the defendant sued the son to claim for the unpaid amount. The court issued a ruling that the amount paid by the claimant’s father had settled the entire debt. Therefore, this is an implication that if Ramsay’s mother decides to pay the outstanding balance to Nigella this amount will be acceptable as a settlement of debt without raising future legal consequences to either of the parties. In conclusion, Nigella should sue Ramsay in order to recover the amount owned to her in payment for the tutorials she offered him. The new charges will apply for the period beginning November 2013. In case Ramsay’s mother offer to pay for the amount owned by her son Nigella should take it in settlement of her debt. Bibliography Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 High Court, Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 Court of Appeal Tool Metal manufacturing v Tungsten [1955] 1 WLR 761 House of Lords, Read More