Nuances of Business and Employment Law - Essay Example

Business and employment law al Affiliation) Fernando, Simon and Arthur In the entering into agreement of sale between two or more people, the elements of entering into contracts; offer and agreement, intention of legal consequences and also the consideration in the contract1. The sale is supposed to have the elements and the going against the agreements brings about the breach to the sale and is exposed to charges in the court of law. The elements of entering into a contract should be much considered in the entering in the contract in the sales. Simon has liabilities for some party that they entered in the contract and also can be made not liable for entering into the contract with Fernando. The entering into contract with Fernando by Simon is not legible. In the sale that Fernando entered into had no acceptance into the contract of sales. The offer was made by Simon and accepted by one party2. The seller did not enter to the allowance of the buying by Fernando. The contract was no variation in the terms of offer. Fernando though accepted the offer that was made by Simon did not notify him so that they could agree on the terms of the sales and the services that could be offered by Simon to him after the sales. In the sales there should be intention to be legally bound. The agreement that was to occur between the two parties were not confirmed by the law due to the fact that the agreement between the two was not reviewed. The enforcement was also not done in the basis of the public policy. Simon can be made not liable for the inconveniencies that was caused to Fernando. This is due to the considerations that was not made between the two. The value was worth to the contract that could have been reached between the two but it was not reached. Consideration as an element of an agreement for sale between the two parties was not agreed that could make them being bounded by the law to take the particular exchange of the book. The exchange that was to occur between the two people also was that that could not be held for productive use in the exchange since Simon was not able to receive the mail that was sent to him by Fernando. The exchange between the two was not of like kind since the two were not of the same nature and did not come to the agreement3. Fernando included in the payment for the book other additions that were not recommended and specified by Simon in his advertisement for the sale of the book. The additional charges makes the seller of the book not liable since he did not quote them in the advertisement. The contract that the two came into was void and this makes no party reliable for the damages that was caused in the reach for the agreement of sale. The contract of sale of the book between Arthur and Simon was reached and this makes Simon liable for the damages that might have been caused to Arthur4. The terms that was set by Simon for the sale of the book was met by Arthur and through the carelessness of Simon, this makes him neglect the mail that was sent and he breaches the agreement that was came into by them5. The contract was lawful as the terms that were stated in the contract and this makes the procedures that was followed by Arthur in the purchase for the book legal. The mess was brought by Simon himself in the agreement and this through the law makes him the one that breached the agreement ad makes him liable. The form of the contract was legal and binds him in the liability for the inconveniencies that he cased to Arthur by selling the book to the other dealers. In the reach for agreement for the sale of the book, the parties that were involve created a legal relationship and this makes Simon to be charged for the breach. Simon on the other hand is able to protect himself in the court for not being able to reach the contract between them and Arthur. He can use affirmative defenses to remove the liability that he has for Arthur. His deleting the mail from Arthur as spam was by mistake. The defense of having the mistake that contributed the delate makes the contract that they made between them to be voidable. The mistake that occurred in the contract was the common unilateral mistake6. The mistake that occurred and resulted to the breaching of the contract was not intended by any of the two but it was due to the communication that was used in the completion for the sale7. Simon did not take any advantage of the mistake that occurred and through awareness of the mail that was sent decided to sell the book to the other party8. The mistake that occurred in the contract between the two was identified in the mistakes that are able to occur according to the law. The mistakes that are able to occur are, mutual mistakes, the unilateral mistakes and also the common mistakes. In the decision on the case by the court, there is also probability in the consideration of the competitors that were involve in the buying of the book. Simon according to the law was able to have a limited class to get the payment of value that he deserved. Fern’s claims for damages The law of damages are well stated and are to be implemented on the basis considering the factors that results to the damages and also in the consideration of the person that causes the damage9. Liability in the damages is proven by the person that has gone through the damages in the consideration of the balance in the probabilities that resulted to the damage. In the consideration of the cause of the damage that was caused by Joe, the company, Good Buys are not responsible for the damages that was caused to Fern. In the consideration on the warning that indicated that the company is not in the position to compensate Fern on the damage that was caused. The experienced that Joe could be having maybe had not been much tested and this also through the law makes the company not being liable for the damages that was caused. Mrs. Simon is able to bring about proof that there was damage caused to her and she is entitled to be compensated10. The compensation is not able to be done despite the damages since the amount of damages are not attributed by the rules and regulations that was in the place where the damage occurred. The damage that was caused by Joe on his duty was equal to the liability and also to the ways that the company can use in the defense to evade the compensation11. Fern can claim liability but she cannot be able to well explain the harm that was caused to her as she was driving in the parking of Good Buys which had earlier given the notice of lack of liability that can be caused to any person that was in the parking. The claimant, Fern could only be compensated as stated by tort law when there was neglect in the duty that was being carried out by Joe. Joe did not have any neglect in his duty but caused the damage due to the lack of experience. This brings him not to have any breach in his duty. Due to lack of breach of duty by the defendant, the court is not able to award the sum that will restore Fern into her economic position expected from the accident that occurred. The court will also into consideration the nature and the injury that was caused by Joe to Fern. The court will refer into the judicial studies board guidelines that will bind the decision on the compensation to be given to her also considering the notice and the experience that Joe had. The damage that was caused in the parking was punitive12. This makes the damage not be recognized by the law and the damage cannot be considered to violate the public orders. The fact that Fern was not wearing a helmet when she was driving without protection and this might be the reason that caused damage and injury to her. She however can make claims to Joe for compensation since he was driving very fast and knowing that she did not have enough experience13. The claim she can make on the company is due to the employment of Joe who was not experienced to the job of driving14. The claims are able to be understood by the court but she may not be compensated since she was not protected and also she neglected the notice that was put by the company. Bibliography Miller, Lynne M. Insurance Claims for Environmental Damages. New York, N.Y.: Executive Enterprises Publications, 1989. Roosevelt, Franklin D. Estimates of Appropriations to Pay Claims for Damages to Privately Owned Property: Communication from the President of the United States Transmitting ... Washington, D.C.?: [U.S. G.P.O.], 1940. Burton S, Elements Of Contract Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2009) Carter A, Elements Of The Law Of Contract (Sweet and Maxwell 1907) Phillips H and REESE J, The Elements Of Contract (British Bridge World 1937) Bartsch E, Liability For Environmental Damages (Mohr Siebeck 1998) Read More