Law of Contract - Assignment Example

Law of Contract The 7th paragraph of the case study provides us with information that to attract more publi and gathering for the upcoming show, he, besides taking several steps also makes an announcement that the person who will solve the attached crossword puzzle, will be provided with two free tickets to the concert. However, the last date to enter in the competition was 26th June. As Rupert has publicly made such declaration he actually has come under contract to fulfill his promise to the person who will satisfy his requirement. Though his contract is applicable for the person only who will satisfy his conditions but at the same time with such promise he draws himself under contractual term with all the people who wish to attend the concert. Additionally, just the day before closing of the competition death of Micky Jackman, the main performer, plays a vital role. As there is a high possibility that due to such unfortunate death the concert will be cancelled, automatically, this promises or norms of contract will be breached too. Here is also a possibility that Rupert can be sued by any of the persons to whom he has made such promises. However, Rupert’s breaching of promise to the people is not something that he has actually intended to perform. The situation suddenly has turned to be so that he does no have any hold or control over it. Keeping this factor in mind, Rupert cannot be held to be a person who has breached the norms of contract. Though a legal relationship has been created between the audience and Rupert in fulfillment of the promises made to him, but at the same time it is also evident that Rupert has not intentionally broken the bonds of the legal relations mainly due to the reason that situation turned out completely in a different manner that he actually planned to be and he did not have any control to check the course of events. In this context we can refer to the famous case, Wilson v Burnett [2007] EWCA 1170. In this case, the defendant, though she has shared with withy her friends about her winning of £100.000 informally, but she never has come under any legal relationship or promise making with them that she would share the money. “In the County Court, the judge had accepted the defendants evidence that there was chat or talk about sharing winnings which went no further than discussion or chat. It could not have been inferred to have had an intention to create a legal relationship, that is to share the prize money. The CA agreed.” (Intention to create legal relations) However, it is not that Rupert is completely freed from all liabilities towards all those people who already purchased ticket for the performance that actually promised to give and he also has sold 4000 thickets, each 55 sterling, to the people who wished to attend the performance. It is a liability on his part to give back the entire amount to those people purchased the ticket. Micky’s death may have stopped him from going forth with plans of the performance but at the same time there is no denial of the fact that it is under his capacity to give back money to the people. Unless this aspect is fulfilled there is always a legal option that Rupert can be sued for non performance of his actions. 2. Rupert’s promise to pay extra 35,000 sterling to the J. Builders is another situation that raised the issue of contractual dispute. The main concern of Rupert was to get ready with his mansion so that the performance can be organized properly and at the same time it also becomes possible for him to earn the profit out of the 4000 tickets that he has already sold. However, death of Micky is one important factor that changed his entire course of action. His promise to pay the extra amount to ensure completion of the total project within 12th June did not mention any such term or condition that specifies the fact that Rupert, if he does not pay the entire amount, it will not lead him non fulfillment of the contractual terms. In this context we can refer to the landmark judgment of Cutter v Powell 1795 6 Tr 320. History of the case suggests, “Cutter was contracted to work as second mate on a ship sailing from Jamaica to Liverpool. The voyage started on 2 August and the ship arrived in Liverpool on 9 October alas without Cutter who had died on 20 September. Held Cutter’s widow could recover no payment. The contract was deemed to be an entire contract i.e. payment to be made on completion of the voyage.” (Civil Obligations 1, Discharge of Contract) In this context we see that jurisprudential rational behind exemption of Cutter’s widow from receiving any payment is that non performance of Cutter to fulfill his contractual obligation to the shipping company. It is due to this untimely death that he has failed to perform the acts. However, as the contract between him and the shipping company did not bear any explicit evidence of the fact that due to his sudden demise he will still be paid with the amount that the company has promised him according to the contractual obligations. The only factor which was taken into consideration that Cutter has not fulfilled the performance that he actually promised to the company and he has also not been provided with the payment. Keeping this rational in mind in this context it can also be said that Rupert’s promise to –pay the amount to the construction company, if he be sued for non fulfillment of his contractual obligations, will be taken into account and not the situations that actually led him to such condition. The construction company, on the other hand fulfilled their promise to finish the work within 12th June, as requested by Rupert by employing additional number of workers. Thus, according to legal jurisprudence it is also Rupert’s responsibility to fulfill legal obligations on his part. According to the definition of contract, “A contract is a legally enforceable agreement giving rise to obligations for the parties involved. The law of Contract determines which agreements are enforceable and regulates those agreements, providing remedies if contractual obligations (undertakings or promises) are broken …. Therefore, the law of contract is distinct from braches of law where duties are imposed….” (Macdonald, Koffman, 2004, p. 1) Keeping this definition in mind, it can be said that as on hand the construction company has fulfilled their legal obligations, it is also Rupert’s responsibility to act according to the terms of contractual duty that has been imposed over him. If he fails to perform his actions he can be sued by the company under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act, 1978, which states, “At English common law the right of contribution is based on unjust enrichment in which there is liability to a common demand. An award of contribution is not an award in damages but in restitution. The most common situations of concurrent liability in construction projects, is where two persons are independently liable, whether in contract or tort, for the same damage.” (Breach of Contact, 1999) 3. Information received from the 3rd paragraph of the case study leads us to the situation that clearly indicates about rise of such a situation, which according to contractual jurisprudence, refers to as discharge of contract. Depending over the factor of performance a contract can be discharged. The general rule states, “…parties must perform all their obligations under the contract before they are released from it. A party who fails to perform his/her obligations may be in breach of contract.” (Civil Obligations 1, Discharge of Contract) However there are certain exceptions to this rule which states clearly, “…where the contractual obligation has been substantially performed, the contractor is entitled to the stated price, subject to deduction for the omissions or defects.” (Civil Obligations 1, Discharge of Contract) Declaration of the construction company that the whole project cannot be completed before 12th June is not because of the fact that they are negligent about fulfilling their duties but certain unavoidable situation has been raised due to which completion of the project will be delayed for 3 weeks. In a process of contract, presence of the agreement factor between the two parties is very important. It is due to the fact of legal enforceability that the factor of obligation of both these parties to each other as well as to law becomes essential. Focusing over the factor of agreement, it can be said that the legal consequences or the factor of legal enforceability only due to the agreement aspect. Thus, Laurence Koffman have Elizabeth Macdonald observed a contract as “an agreement with undertakings (promises or obligations) on both sides; it is an agreement that is intended to have legal consequences.” (Macdonald, Koffman, 2004, p. 8) In this case presence of the mutual agreement is explicit and because of this reason only the construction company clearly shows that the project will be delayed not because of their own fault but due to presence of the sewage pipes that were already present and this fact was beyond their knowledge. Keeping all these aspects in mind it can be said that the situation was actually not leading to the discharge of contract. At the same time we also see that as Rupert is aware about the situation and satisfied also about performance of the construction company he has not cancelled the project; rather agrees to pay 35, 000 sterling extra to assist them so that the project can be completed within the scheduled time. In the Hoenig V Isaacs 1952 2 All ER 176 we see almost a similar example that the plaintiff has agreed to furnish the defendant’s flat at the cost of £750. However, there were certain defects which can be mend at the additional coast of £55. In this case the court came to the decision that the plaintiff is eligible to receive the total price of £750, less than £55. However, in the given case Rupert himself has agreed to pay extra 35000 sterling for the completion of the project within the restricted period of time and he has come accordingly under contact. Thus, there cannot be any discharge of contract and the construction company is eligible to receive the entire amount as specified by the terms of contract. References 1. “Breach of Contract”, 1999, available at: http://www.atkinson-law.com/cases/CasesArticles/Articles/Breach_of_Contract.htm, accessed on: 16th Aug, 2009 2. LL.B. (Hons) Civil Obligations 1 3. LLB Hons. Contract: Intention to create legal relations 4. Macdonald, E., Koffman, L., 2007, The Law of Contract, Oxford University Press (Oxford) Read More