Contract Law: Mental Distress Damages - Case Study Example

Unit Contract Law: Mental Distress Damages A contract refers to an agreement that has an object of law in it that is entered voluntarily between parties intending to create a legal obligation. Different elements of contract exist that include acceptance, offer, consideration, competent persons, and mutuality of obligation. Proof of these elements can be done in writing but in other cases, contracts can be by conduct or orally. Whenever a breach of contract occurs, damages for compensation are awarded either in form of specific performance or money that is enforced by an injunction (key facts about English contract law 01). Contracts are legally enforceable by law undertakings or promises that something will be undertaken or will not occur. Law of contract varies broadly depending on the jurisdiction including civil, criminal and received laws. Contracts are governed through common and statutory law and also private laws. The private laws usually provide terms of agreements of the parties who are engaging in legal promises (Supreme Court Judgments 02). State laws can be overridden by private laws since contracts are legal promises, care is required since sometimes they may not have full standing of legal contract without consideration. The contract laws apply Mutual consent that refers to the parties having mutual understanding on what the promise or contract covers. For instance, in the case of Farley vs. Skinner, both should have a mutual consent about the selling of property. Offer and acceptance is another element of a legal contract whereby one party makes an offer which is accepted by the offeree (Remedies for Breach of Contract 02). For instance, in the case of sell of property, the seller makes an offer which is accepted by the buyer to create a binding agreement for sale of the property. If a counter offer occurs, it is usually treated as a new contract that can be treated as offer rejection. Mutual consent is an important element of a contract. For a contract to be valid, both parties must exchange and have an understanding of the order through explanations. Therefore, a contract must consist of a consideration that is exchanged between the parties and should be of value. For Farley v Skinner, Farley receives a property and Skinner is paid in form of money. The action contemplated within the contractual agreement should be delivered or performed. In a breach of contract, the alleging party will narrate that it undertook all its responsibilities according to the contract. The other party will recite that their partner did not perform their obligations as stipulated within the contract. It is very important that at the beginning of a contract, the extent of rights that parties acquire are clearly stipulated and defined by the contract. When entering in synallagmatic or bilateral contract, both parties acquire legal responsibility of performance in the contract and also assume legal and enforceable duties of a contract. For the case of Farley v Skinner, liability in the contract can be contrasted with that imposed in tort of negligence. The duty of negligence is where the claimant is compensated against loss that is reasonably foreseeable outcome of carelessness. In negligence, liability is founded on the consequences but not the act. Generally, there is no free standing duty of care (Koffman and Macdonald 569). In a contract, liability is founded on act of agreement. The obvious means of vindicating the petitioner’s right duty of the contract is to order the offender to perform. For nominal damages, they are simply awarded due to breach of contract. It is very clear within the general rule that when there is a contract breach, damages are not awarded for anxiety or vexation or aggravation or even similar mind state due to the contract breach. Parties who breach a contract cannot be fully liable for frustration, distress, anxiety, vexation, displeasure, aggravation or tension that his breach is likely to cause to the other party. This policy is not founded on the assumption that these reactions are not foreseeable since they are foreseeable. This principle was recently adopted by House Gore Wood V Johnson. According to Bingham (2007), where the very action of a contract performance is to offer relaxation, pleasure, freedom from molestation and peace of mind, damages will be provided if the agreement does not produce the intended results as mentioned (Koffman & Macdonald 569). The speech of Lord Lloyd (2001) established that in some case, the claimant, notwithstanding might suffer no monetary loss; in such as case, they can be compensated if the defendant breaches contractual duties. According to Lord Lloyd`s speech, for the general rule regarding the claims for contract breach, the plaintiff cannot be awarded damages for her injured feeling. Notably, the referred to the exception to this rule but only if the plaintiff has an intention or the object of the contract of pleasure that is disappointed or breached (Koffman & Macdonald 569). For instance, if a household pays for a swimming and the other party does not offer the necessary pleasure which is party of the object for the contract, the household is likely to receive damages for the injured emotions or mental distress caused by the defendant. Farley v Skinner case Mr. Farley who is the plaintiff had an intention of purchasing a house in the countryside with Riverside at Black boys. It is noted that the presence of Sussex in the market fitted his bill. This house was 15 miles from the Airport of Gatwick. The claimant (Mr. Farley) was worried that the rural retreat should not be impacted by noise from the aircraft (Contract Law … 01). He instructed the defendant, Mr. Skinner a chartered surveyor to undertake an inspection of this property and provide a report on its condition and structure (Parker 521). Mr. Skinner was also asked to check whether noise originating from the airport of Gatwick would affect the property due to the proximity. These instructions were accepted by Mr. Skinner on 1990 December 17 and the details were in page 38 of the report. According to page 35 of Mr. skinner`s report, the property would not be affected greatly from the noise. Mr. Skinner did not make enough inquiries about the noise from the airport since there existed Mayfield Stack few miles from the property where aircraft waiting for landing confirmation were to be directed to till Gatwick airport was clear and ready to receive the aircrafts. The route to the airport also frequently forced aircrafts to fly over Blackboys. Mr. Skinner breached the contract for not adequately surveying the area hence according to the general law; Mr. Farley should compensate Mr. Farley (Parker 521). If Mr. Farley would have received information on the noise of aircraft, then he would have not purchased the Riverside house. Therefore, judge should enforce the contract by payment of damages to Mr. Farley. After Mr. Farley purchased the property, he put up far-reaching renovation and modernization and moved in to take up the residence. This was the time he made a discovery about the noise from the aircraft which affected him immensely. Perhaps some residents within the area where not affected by the noise but according to Mr. Farley, he was affected. According to Mr. Farley, the noise affected his morning stroll, reflective breakfast and enjoyment of quietness. The judges ruled that it was a discomfort and there was a breach of contract hence Mr. Farley was awarded damages of £10,000. When contractual damages for mental stress should be awarded In the past, many courts have accepted losses arising from contractual breach compensable such as discomfort and physical inconvenience but shied away from breach of contract resulting from mental damages. A contract breaker should not generally be liable for anxiety, distress, displeasure, aggravation, or tension caused by the breach of contract. According to Addis (2003), this policy is not founded on assumptions that such actions are not foreseeable but are due to the consideration of the general rule. As a matter of fact, when the innocent party of disappointed and when the defendant has not performed his duty, the claimant’s distress and disappointment are seldom so substantial to attract damages that are often awarded on the score. Contracts are concerned with commercial consideration and matters but not mental suffering due to breach of contract and cannot be completed as part of the risk during a transaction. An incident of commercial life contract-breaking should cause mental fortitude on the parties involved. The court`s jurisprudence has well followed restrictive interpretation of the Addis that require that any claim for compensation of damages for mental distress should actually be grounded on independent actionable conduct (Chen-Wishart 537). Therefore, the general policy for mental distress was well preserved and not awarded in the case of Mr. Farley v Mr. Skinner. The awarding of damages for mental distress should only be offered if the contract was for peace of mind, pleasure, or relaxation. Proper case for mental distress should allow damages to be recovered by the claimant the same way damages for shock are usually recovered. For instance, a case of a holiday package or contract to provide enjoyment or entertainment can lead to mental distress considerations. If the party contracting does not perform according to the contract, distress, disappointment, frustration and upset caused can be recovered by damages (Chen-Wishart 537). Other incidences where damages for mental distress should be awarded should be in vacation contracts, wedding services luxury chattels since peace of mind is of the essence and of promise in such contracts and should not be breached. Activities or contracts whereby at the start there is contemplation that if a breach occurs, then the plaintiff would suffer mental distress, damages can also be recovered. The fundamental principle for the provision of damages within the common law is to restore the injured party to the position (not only monetary position) in which the individual would have been if the action did could have not occurred (Davenport 249). The fact that feeling are injured due to the breach of a contract happens to both parties if it should therefore not provide damages for one party but for both since if one party was not involved then the distress would not have happened (Davenport 249). Conclusively, that damages cannot be offered for mental distress in inappropriate cases especially where peace of mind, enjoyment or entertainment was not part of the contract. The court should always evaluate what the contract promised and award compensation for those promises only. The objectives of a contract will always remain to restore wronged individual(s) to their rightful positions where the involved parties would have been if the contract was not breached. According to Privy (2005) suggestions, the claimant should be placed in that position it had been performed by money. Nonetheless, mental distress damages should only be recovered where reasonable and where such are contemplated within the contract. Works cited 10 key facts about English contract law. APril 2, 2013. Retrieved march 13, 2014, web< http://www.seqlegal.com/blog/10-key-facts-about-english-contract-law> Chen-Wishart, Mindy. Contract Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Contract Law - An Introduction. October 1, 2010. Retrieved March 13, 2014, web< Expert LAw: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law.html> Contract. September 24, 2004. Retrieved March 12, 2014, web< http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract> Davenport, Philip. Construction Claims. Sydney, N.S.W: Federation Press, 1995. Print. Hood, Parker. Principles of Lender Liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Judgments - Farley v. Skinner. May 25, 2005. .Retrieved March 13, 2014, web Koffman, Laurence, and Elizabeth Macdonald. The Law of Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Remedies for Breach of Contract. August 20, 2009. Retrieved March 13, 2014, web< http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/ch9remedies.htm> Supreme Court Judgments . November 16, 2006. Retrieved March 13, 2014, web< http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2303/index.do?r=AAAAAQATQ2FuYWRhIEV2aWRlbmNlIEFjdAAAAAAB> Read More