The Concept of Mutual Accent and Intention - Essay Example

The concept of mutual accent and intention to be bind finds value in the bone of contention between Orlando and Kate. Arguably, many businesses rely on trust and good will of each party for success. Therefore, the standard of intelligence necessary for advising Orlando relies on capacity to explain promissory estoppel and part payment debt adequately, to ensure a fair and just process. Same other businessperson Orlando has a right to set his terms of operation, which he dims, fit for the clients. On the other hand, customers have an obligation to choose from the existing offers and ensure they meet the requirements. In this respect, clients can pay in full or incur partial payment processes to obtain the same products1. From this perspective, the willing buyer-seller technique relies on participant’s ability to come to an agreement on which method to apprehend a decision. When a debtor makes partial payment to a creditor, who has the right to end the agreement? In an event that both decide to settle before completion of the contract, who takes responsibility? The belief that the law binds a promisor to his promises raises many questions on the boundary of such aptitudes. Agreements are very important; nevertheless, the main question remains how to address disputes in contracts2. According to promissory estoppel, any creditor who formally or informally notifies a debtor of forgiving a commitment has no right to claim the same. In the case of Orlando and Kate, the latter chose a system of payment for buying a car worth $2500 by compensating in double instalments of $1250. Certainly, this pegged to her income that could not allow her pay a lump some for the same product. The mutual agreement between the two; however, did not materialize after Kate lost her job hence failing to pay for the second instalment. Worried about making losses, Orlando settled on an additional $625 and a bottle of wine as a token of appreciation from Kate. Notably, this marked the end of their agreement of the sale and hence termination of the contract. Nonetheless, Orlando after hearing of Kate’s luck in finding another job intends to seek for the additional fee. Notably, Kate has no obligation to pay the remaining amount considering that Orlando agreed to new terms. The Law of promissory estoppel guards Kate against Orlando’s idea to demand more money. On the other hand, the doctrine of part payment debt assumes that partial payment of a debt does not hinder the creditor from fully enforcing the intention to settle. From this perspective, the capacity, to settle before partial fulfilment, solely rests with the creditor3. Nonetheless, any intention to end the agreement, should be pegged on good will without future alterations to benefit from the same contract. The concept of part payment debt plays an imperative role for Orlando; however, it exposes Kate to massive exploitation. Pinnels Case (1602) 5 CoRep 117a hold that part-payment does not form one of the best ways to claim a debt4. In this light, part-payment for any good does not offer a leverage to forgo the balance. From this perspective, Orlando has the full right to claim the balance from Kate, who is fully obligate to pay the full amount based on the previous agreement. Consequently, in Sibree v Tripp part payment of a lesser value than the earlier agreed standard does not form part of the full settlement. As a matter fact, any illusion of total payment in contravention of the original agreement attracts a limited attention. The debtor, therefore, has a right to discharge and demand the remaining amount as evident in D&C Builders v Rees. Nonetheless, Vanbergen v St Edmund properties acknowledge that in an event that a creditor request for alternative payment, the good will still relies on him, as it can amount to fraud5. The feeling gets vibrated by Hughes v Metropolitan Railway that notes that promises by creditors are not immune to the original conditions. Therefore, in an event that a creditor makes a new agreement related to the original one, he still enjoys the right to demand for the original terms without contradiction. With regards to promissory estoppel, Kate has a higher chance of denying liability and being $ 625 richer. The law of promissory estoppel limits exploitation of certain rights or arguments with reference to the previous occurrence. The rule bars anybody from denying the previous event, which he fears might affect the intention of achieving another goal. In many instances, people find themselves in controversial situations that forfeit past actions for a better option6. Notably, such instances cause victims to suffer as they go through double losses to litigate the central victims. For any situation to warrant a promissory estoppel the relative knowledge, context and strength of the position plays an imperative role in determining preventable harm. The Halsburys Laws of England, vol. 16(2), of 2003 defines estoppel as actions with an intention to induce faith between representor and representee7. In Aspex Eyewear v. Clariti, for instance, the Federal Circuit hindered Aspex from proceeding with a suit after three years of misleading Clarity eyeglasses. Indeed, the feeling also find value in Hunter v Chief Constable, which prevented unfair party litigation after failure to adhere to rules. Promissory estoppel between Orlando and Kate gives the latter an advantage. Based on the agreement between the two, Kate was supposed to pay for the car in two instalments; nonetheless, this changed upon her losing employment. For fear of losses, Orlando changed the deal to suit her forcing Kate for an additional $ 625 despite being out of work. Notably, insurance and car dealership terms require that in case a client fails to pay for a car, the dealer has a right to seek court approval to two back the car. Consequently, the dealer has a right to organise for new and convenient terms with the customer for full payment. With all these options on the table, Orlando sought for an easy option, which included conclusion of payment by an additional $625. In McIntosh v. Murphy a reasonable promise that holds utmost expectation must not be neglected8. Therefore, the reasonable promise by Orlando to settle the deal reasonably puts Kate’s hopes for completion for payment in light. From this perspective, changing of the original deal between Kate and Orlando plays an important role in their deliberation. Through Promissory estoppel, Orlando has not legal or ethical right to claim the remaining amount of money considering that he forfeited the original value. Miller v. Lawlor makes promissory estoppel one of the best litigation techniques against ethical malpractices. It is a public policy in Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. that protects debtors from exploitation by creditors who are at liberty to change deals based on personal interests. Therefore, with reference to Promissory estoppel Kate has no obligation to pay for the remaining amount despite the new job with a high pay. Nonetheless, completion of payment relies on Kate’s goodwill to return the favour to Orlando, who saved her the pain of paying for a car without a reliable job. While focusing attention on the model of part payment debt, Orlando retains a higher bargain power. Same to any other payment system instalments remain effective for expensive devices; however, it does not offer a leeway for incomplete payments. Notably, incomplete partial payment cannot sum up to the whole value of a product. Therefore, the lesser sum does not elevate one party to the original financial status. Certainly, Orlando’s decision to terminate payment was a sympathetic gesture due to her loss of employment. However, the situation changed with Kate earning even a higher salary. Since Kate no longer suffers the financial problems that forced Orlando’s decision to reduce the price of the car, she remains obligated to complete payment commensurate with the Car’s value. Certainly, Kate is likely to gain more services from the car while Orlando makes losses. The argument makes Orlando’s role in business irrelevant considering the intention to satisfy his customers, but this does not appear in return. In this light, the full responsibility for full payment lies with Kate. Failure to pay such an amount reduces the car’s value by 25%, which can significantly affect Orlando’s ability to survive in the competitive market. Additionally, satisfaction is a key component of any business transaction. Part payment no matter how long should ensure that both parties gain the intended objectives. In Couldery v, Bartru, a creditor can accept anything for payment except a lesser value9. Despite the availability of extraordinary peculiarity, common rule dictates that satisfaction should be a key ingredient in the contract recipe10. Most importantly, a creditor has the ability to reverse all the contractual rights in different part payment systems. From this perspective, Orlando has a right to compel Kate for full payment of the car. Orlando’s care and responsibility to clients cannot be confused for termination of contract. Certainly, his decision to allow Kate pay $625 is circumstantial to the termination of employment. Determining estoppel should be on moral grounds rather than from a business perspective. It is important to note that Orlando has changed the conditions of agreement; however, it is Kate’s situation that drove him into making the rush decisions. It is also imperative to bring into light that the binding agreement obligates Kate to clear completion whether employed or unemployed. Therefore, Orlando should seek a series of alternatives that will guarantee full payment of the car. Certainly, Orlando should pursue the part payment debt concept that grants him the ability to seek for the remaining amount until he gains full payment. He should also challenge any argument of estoppel on various grounds. First the purchase of the car had an original marked price payable in two instalments; this however was not possible after Kate losing her employment. Additionally, when he decided to help Kate in relieving the remaining amount, he had no malicious or fraudulent intend. Most importantly, he did not cause any injury to the complainant but only made her life easy despite employment challenges. The agreement was clear and concise as evident by Kate’s appreciation with a bottle of wine. On the same note, the knowledge of facts was clear to both parties. This makes Orlando decision indisputable hence the decision to petition Kate to complete payment. Last but importantly, he should outline payment initiatives that arrest cases of defaulting or inability to pay. Such measures shift liability from the creditors to debtors. Bibliography Bar C, Ulrich Drobnig, and Guido Alpa. The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe: A Comparative Study. (München: Sellier, 2004) Couldery v Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch D 394 Foakes v Beer (1883-84) LR 9 App Cas 605 House of Lords Halsburys Laws of England, vol 16(2), of 2003 Mak C. Fundamental Rights in European Contract Law: A Comparison of the Impact of Fundamental Rights on Contractual Relationships in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and England. (Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2008) McIntosh v. Murphy, 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177 (Haw. 1970). McKendrick E, Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) Pinnels Case (1602) 5 CoRep 117a Poole, Jill. Casebook on Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) Poole, Jill. Textbook on Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford university press, 2014) Read More