The Case of Lucy Lady Duff-Gordon - Assignment Example

The court was to determine whether Ms. Duff-Gordon was in breach of the earlier contract.

The lower appellate court disallowed Wood’s prayers by holding that without an explicit promise, the contract was void. The appellant proved that Woods did not seek an equivalent request for her explicit promise. In addition, she did not make any requests for any proceeds from Wood in a manner that would have provided a sense of her “consideration”, which was vital for the validity of the contract.

In light of this, the court established that even though, Wood failed to create a binding contract by not seeking the input of the other party, it was naturally implicit for the party to conduct himself reasonably by delivering half of the proceeds he was to obtain. The primary rationale behind the ruling was that for a contractual term to be deemed implicit, it must be very clear to validate the contract. This means that in common law, parties to a contract must foster a relationship that undercuts the formalism of the document signing process.

The English case law of Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493 involved frustration in the performance of contracts. Mr. Webster agreed with Mr. Chandler, in the latter party would have an accommodation on a strategic street to witness the King's installation on June 26, 1902. In the initial agreement, the tenant was supposed to pay 141£ 15s. Mr. Chandler had rented the room on behalf of another party who was not impressed by it; besides, the party could not use it due to other commitments elsewhere. In light of these changes, Mr. Chandler paid £100 on June 19 and requested Mr. Webster to raise money using part of the room, and promised to settle the shortfall in a letter dated June 10, if any occurred under the new arrangement. The King became unwell prompting the cancellation of the event (McKendrick 730).

The court was to determine whether Mr. Chandler could reclaim the £100; and whether Mr. Webster was entitled to the remainder of the payment the ceremony notwithstanding.

The High Court ruled that the claimant could not reclaim the £100 and that his letter dated 10th June was clear enough that he would only settle the balance after the ceremony. The defendant was also disbarred from laying the counter-claim. On appeal, the court held that Mr. Chandler could not validly reclaim his damages before the cancellation of the procession, as his letter was explicit enough about his keenness to follow the procession.