Law of Contract, Agreement and Law of Tort - Case Study Example

The Foundations of Business Law The following essay tends to articulate on the different cases that encompass the law of contract, agreement and therole of tort. The essay also provides evidence that supports the various evidence grounds that support the propositions put forward therein. Case studies of real-time cases are also useful in the judgments of the particular subjects of study. A contractual relationship is a term that refers to the relationship that two parties share. However, the relation has evidences of an offer and the consequent acceptance of the offer. Moreover, a valid consideration that is either legal or valuable in every form (Richards, 2006). In other scenarios, the relationship may fall under the void or voidable contract. A voidable contract relates various issues that attribute the nature of the contract. The following cases illustrate the justifications of a contract. 1) Avoid contract comes into form whereby there is no disclosure of material facts that greatly characterize the contract. 2) There is a misrepresentation 3) There is a mutual mistake 4) There is the lack of a free will of one of the parties that is contracting. In addition, if the presence of one of the parties tends to have unavoidable influence on the other party. 5) If there is a material breach or dishonor of the terms that make up the contract. R v Clarke case The main issue of the case was the plaintiff in the need for payment from the state for information about a murderer that he was providing. The person was under investigation of the murder despite his desire for a reward. The court ruling saw it fit that the plaintiff did have completely had no inherent intentions of receiving an offer. The court saw that it was a necessity for any contact to become of the place to have a subtle reliance on the offer. There is a requirement for a complete acceptance of the offer. However, in the above case, the plaintiff was not acting on the offer but was acting as a defensive mechanism in order to clear his name from the investigation. As such, the government won the case in that the person could not receive any compensation since there were not enough grounds for the establishment of an enforceable contract. About the above propositions, the relationship with the sisters is a contractual relationship. The reason is that the acceptance tends to illustrate the offer. The acts of storing the giving the fish to Lau for storage also indicates the acceptance of the offer. Despite the fish being in good condition, the acceptance of the fish shows the acceptance of the offer. The contract is not void because there is a clear will during the acceptance of fish. There is also no mutual mistake since the fish on arrival raises issues of hygiene (Markesinis, 2006).There is a corresponding order to store the fish in the right place and the correct manner. Therefore, the compensation of the fish is justifiable for the sisters. A contract is not necessary to appear in writing in order for it to enforceable. Question two On offering Fundi to work and to create the terms and conditions that include the time frame and the amount of cash that he receives are enough grounds that tend to indicate the formation of the agreement. Therefore, any deviation of the terms therein is a breach of contract. The breach relates to the failure of one of the parties to honor the terms as set in the contract. A breach of contract comes into form whereby 1. There is the refutation of the duties before the completion of the duties 2. There is refutation of the duties before the beginning of the commencement of the contract. 3. There is a conduct that acts as a barrier to the proper execution of the duties as per the contract. However, the case of Fundi may not require payment if it does not amount to a breach of contract. On the contrary, the situation is the may be the right definition of a frustration of the contract. The frustration of contract implies the legal termination of an existing contract because of inevitable and unforeseen circumstances. The circumstances entail the following: 1. There are instances that prevent the achievement of the basic objectives of the contract. 2. The performance of the duties as per the contact tend to be against the law 3. The instances tend to make the obligations impossible to perform practically Integrated Computer Services Pty Limited v Digital Equipment Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) The dispute arose whereby there was a misunderstanding on the existence of a contract. The contract dispute was between the ICS and the DEC, and the subject was a VAX mainframe workstation. The ISC Company was set to achieve a purchase of the computer. The terms were that the rate of six hundred dollars was to be set aside particularly for the sale that the ICS was to facilitate. The agreements were not in writing. The ICS was to access the computer until the attainment of full payment. The company had the agreed to install the program even. The court saw that the fit question to establish was whether the parties conduct with relation to the surrounding environment, had a good comprehension of the agreement at hand. The court rule was that the agreement was enforceable. The DEC Company was thus liable of a breach of the whole situation (Koziol, 2008). In the particular case, Fundi may require payment. Frustration of the contract cannot be the sole excuse for a breach of contract. The scenario of the theatre being a circumstance that acts as an object that prevents the achievements of the achievements of the contract is factual. However, the instance was foreseeable during the making of the contract. Therefore, there is a resultant breach of the consequent contract since there is the refutation of the duties before the actual commencement of the duties (Marceau, 2002). Fundis purchases the shoes believing that the contract was a complete deal. Therefore, Fundi is subject to damages as a result of a breach of contract. Question three The issue of Lua falls under a contract of employment. The contract provides that there is an agreement that is written of oral. Furthermore, the agreement may be implied or in the form of an expression. The agreement that specifies the conditions as well as the terms that enumerate any particular person of performing particular duties in exchange for payment in the instance of a salary or a wage. The contract illustrates that the employer has an obligation of protecting the worker from any harm or injury. In addition, the employer should provide compensation that result from any accidents in the business premises. Therefore, according to the law of tort, Lua can sue for can sue for the damages due to a breach that is civil in nature. However, the court tends to consider the following in order to justify the severity of the breach. 1. The likelihood of the harm that the plaintiff incurs. 2. The seriousness of the harm that the associates with the scenario 3. The consequential burden characterizes the precautions that the defendant. 4. The various social utility attributes the activity. Bolton v stone The case was in 1951 whereby the plaintiff was hit by a ball of cricket. The ball that hit the plaintiff had originated from the ground of play. The defendants were the particular committee members of the club. The court ruling went in the favor of the defendants. The court of appeal just like the other court put forward that there were no enough grounds to establish that the defendant did not take enough precautions of the accident. The risk would have been foreseeable, but the happenings were greatly unforeseeable (Goldberg, 2005) Therefore, the case of Lua does not spell out exact negligence. The person is drunk, and that tampers with the movements around the place of work. Although the spilling of water on the floor is a possibility, the act of slipping because of every drop of fluid that spills on the floor is highly improbable. Thus, there is no action for Lua Bibliography Goldberg, J. (2005). The constitutional status of tort law: Due process and the right to a law for the redress of wrongs. The Yale Law Journal, pp.524--627. Koziol, H. S. (2008). Tort law of the European Community. 1st ed. Wien: Springer. Marceau, G. a. (2002). The technical barriers to trade agreement, the sanitary and physanitary measures agreement, and the general agreement on tariffs and trade: a map of the new World Trade Organization law of domestic regulation of goods. journal of World Trade, 36(5),, pp.811--881. Markesinis, B. U. (2006). The German law of contract: a comparative treatise. London: Hart Publishing. Richards, P. (2006). Law of contract. 1st ed. Harlow: England: Pearson Longman. Read More