How the Laws of Obligation Help to Guide Human Behaviour in Several Ways - Assignment Example

1 2 Introduction It is interesting how the laws of obligation help to guide human behaviour in several ways: whether in the areas of making contracts, seeking remedies after a contract has been breaches, and handing out appropriate judgment to the offenders or criminals. This portfolio is a comprehensive reflection on the issues discussed in the Learning Outcomes of Block 2, which include but not restricted to: (i) Different types of torts (e.g false imprisonment, deceit etc) and human rights issue (ii) Contractual obligations, breaches, remedies, and the laws (iii) The role of necessity in defence and as a background of actions (iv) Interrelatedness of some laws (namely private law, criminal law, common law etc) in the course of contracts making, interpretation and analysis. (v) Highlighting the relationship between nuisance, trespass and negligence (vi) The significance of evidence and proof and their interactions in the question of laws. The portfolio will not only consider the facts mentioned above, but it will also discuss in details the other issues that are related to them as far as law of obligation is concerned. As covered in the Learning Outcome 1, obligation is defined as the “duty” or according to Civic Code Arts 1156-1304, it described as “a judicial necessity to give, to do or not to do” something. As a matter of fact, obligations are outlined in contracts which 3 state the conditions of agreement between two or more parties to do something, and these contracts are guarded by the applicable laws. (1) Contractual obligations, breaches, remedies, and the laws: The Learning Outcomes 1 gives comprehensive explanations on what a contract means; that is, as a legally binding document that spells out the details of agreement between two or more partners for the purpose of achieving an end (Lawson and Singleton, 2006). Sometimes, individuals or corporate bodies fail to discharge their own assigned duties as stipulated in the contractual agreement leading to unpardonable breaches that could cost financial losses in the case of Douglas & Ors v. Hello! Ltd & Ors [2007] UKHL 21. Appropriate remedies may be computed and paid to the victims or the claimants affected by these contractual breaches. However, the rate at which contracts have been discredited and breached is surprisingly increasing—and this may due to the fact that personal disloyalty and deceit has been on the rise across the globe. (2) Different types of torts (e.g false imprisonment, deceit, nuisance, defamation etc) and human rights issue: According to the Learning Outcomes 1, an entity that has been affected by a contract breach may go for contract rescission and seek rescission remedies. This situation has given rise to the increased claims for torts in its various forms: there are torts of deceit, nuisance and false imprisonment. All these problems are due the fact that many entities are breaking their contracts with 4 one another and shying away from their fiduciary duties as stipulated in the contract. The Guardian UK in 2000 recorded the first remedies offered to a farm manager as a result of proprietary estoppels which occurred because of the soured relationship between the landowner and the manager (farmer), whose name was removed from the owner’s will after their warm relationship collapsed (Kelso, 2000). Promissory estoppels is also occurring in some quarters as partners betray the promises they have previously made to their business friends before striking commercial deals with the other persons (Lawson and Singleton, 2006). The tort of false imprisonment produces one of the worst effects on the victims. On May 1, 2001, a labour union was demonstrating at Oxford Circus as indicated in Austin & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWHC 480, but some of the demonstrators were arbitrarily detained in a cordon by the officers of Metropolitan Police Service, an action the claimants’ lawyer deemed as infringements on their fundamental human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantee that individual rights should be respected during contract-making and other related activities. (3) Interrelatedness of some laws (namely private law, criminal law, common law etc) in the course of contracts making, interpretation and analysis: In Austin & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWHC 480, some laws overlapped in the course of the entire case: it started as a private law case but 5 was also affected by the Common Law. Contracting is a serious process that requires mutual understanding from all parties that are involved in it. In this case, the law guiding the contract must be the one acceptable to the parties since it is the same law that will be used to interpret the contract (Beale, 2002). Some of the contracts in Europe, including the United Kingdom is drawn on Common Law. Learning Outcomes 2 show that contract interpretation at the court may be somehow different from the initial meaning the contracting had in minds based on the new method of legal construction or deconstruction (Beale, 2002). In this case, contracting parties should include some clauses that support plain and direct interpretation of the contract’s wording to avoid future confusion in construing its meanings. (4) The role of necessity in defence and as a background of actions: Referring to Learning Outcomes 1, 2, and 4, it is recorded that the role of necessity has been employed in the defence of a contractual agreement at the courts or used as a background of actions. Sometimes a contract is breached because one of the entities involved in it felt the necessity to do so (Beale, 2002). This circumstance may occur if the offending party feels that the contract no longer serves the purpose for which it was drawn. In Austin & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWHC 480, the Police claimed the necessity to protect the society from civil disturbance for detaining the demonstrators, even though they realized that their actions may be breaking the Private 6 Law that rejects any idea of false imprisonment. It is also possible for a criminal to use the role of necessity as a background for deconstructing the contents of a contract that had already been signed in order to avoid his or her fiduciary obligations (Lawson and Singleton, 2006). (5) Highlighting the relationship among nuisance, trespass, defamation and negligence: Nuisance occurs when an entity constitutes an act of disturbance within a setting with the intention of derailing the expected course of action. Also explained in Learning Outcomes 1 and 2 is trespass—which may mean going out of one’s way to encroach on the property or right of another; defamation is a serious crime whereby the victim is put under pressure of bad publicity in order to extort from him or her, or to simply mislead the public. The act of negligence is common nowadays as contracting partners unintentionally refuse to carry out their duties as spelled in the contract. In 2008, KPMG was fined to the tune of 1.6 million pounds for contract negligence (Bowers, 2008). In recent years, many firms have also been fined hugely for failing to observe their obligations stipulated in the contracts which they had signed with their business partners. This disturbing trend has often disrupted the principle of equity discussed in Learning Outcomes 1 as parties in a contract find it difficult to balance the proportion between equities and their individual obligations (Beale, 2002). So, the relationship among nuisance, defamation, negligence and trespass lies in the fact that they all constitute the reasons for breaking a contract. When an 7 individual trespass on another’s property, this may lead to criminal charges or a complete rescission of any binding contract between them. The usual approach to this issue is that damages would be demanded as soon as the contract has been cancelled. (6) The significance of evidence and proof and their interactions in the question of laws: Providing the appropriate evidence and proof is quite essential for proving cases arising from contractual disagreement in court. Judges strongly rely on the evidence provided by both the damages claimants and defendants to arrive at the conclusion about who is at fault. However, it may be difficult for judges to make the appropriate judgment if there is problem or burden of proof as described in Learning Outcomes 2. Burden of proof describes the inability of either the claimants or defendants to supply convincing pieces of evidence to sway the judge’s final opinion about the case under deliberation. Crucial evidence needed to identify instances of contractual breaches includes but not restricted to the main document (contract), verbal or written evidence from the witnesses, parallel documents that may serve as the amendments to the main contract, and so on. These pieces of evidence will then be analyzed based on the prevailing laws that guide the contracting. In other words, if Common Laws are the bases on which the contract in question was made, its interpretation and analysis would be done using only the Common Laws except otherwise stated (Beale, 2002). As explained in the Learning Outcomes 1, some contracts are voidable 8 while the others are not voidable. Those contracts with voidable clause may not be recognized as forceful or strong evidence during a court case (Lawson and Singleton, 2006). Depending on the method of construction, it is possible for judges to accept a voidable contract as strong evidence. This may mean that the judges decide to apply the doctrine of “reasonableness” to interpret the contents of the contract. It is important to state that sometimes the obligations indicated in a contractual agreement may be declared non and void because of its contradiction to the prevailing Common Laws or the governmental policies existing in that particular jurisdiction. Hence, the principle of limitation would set in here and work against some of the contract’s details. Judges are quick to point out these inconsistencies with the prevailing laws of the land; thus, they could later decide if the claimants are eligible to damages or not (Lawson and Singleton, 2006). Interestingly, the laws of obligation also respond sharply to the dynamic trends within the societies. Take for instance, many employers request nowadays that their prospective employees should provide recommendation letters before signing the employment contract. In this case, the references automatically become their guarantors and answerable to any behavioural problems the employees may have committed. This issue makes the interpretation the details of agreement complicated as judges need convincing evidence that the contract has actually been breached. Conclusion 9 The facts highlighted above strongly support the assertions that laws of obligation are vital and useful, but they sometimes face certain limitations as societies become dynamic and laws and governmental policies are constantly changing. Torts of different kinds are increasing lately and remedies are sought by those affected by these circumstances to seek justice against their offenders. From time to time, judges calculate the amount of damages based on the normal estimates provided in the applicable laws—but sometime they seem to rely on the precedents to pass their judgment. Another interesting observation is that the law applicable to a contract may overlap with other kinds of law. A contract may start with a Common Law but also possess the elements of Criminal, Private or Property Law. Whichever law is applicable, the responsibility of the judges is to give judgment that would guarantee justice for the person affected by the contractual breaches. References Austin & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWHC 480 Beale, H.G., 2002. Contract law. Oxford: Hart, pp. 75-102. Bowers, S., 2008. KPMG admits negligence over Independent. [Online] June 26. Available at < http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/26/independentnewsmedia.insurance> [Accessed 15 August 2010] Douglas & Ors v. Hello! Ltd & Ors [2007] UKHL 21 Kelso, P., 2000. Farmer wins battle over promised land. [GuardianUK Online] March 9. Available at: < http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/mar/09/paulkelso> [Accessed 15 August 2010] Lawson, R. and Singleton, S., 2006. Commercial contracts: A practical guide to common terms. Dublin. Tottel Publishing, pp. 85-115. Read More