The Contract Law of the UK - Report Example

Contract Law Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Part I 3 Case Overview 3 Part B 7 Case Overview 7 Advice to Claudette 7 Advice to Dutch 8 Advice to Corrine 9 Advice to Danielle 9 Advice to Nina 10 Advice to Mara 10 References 11 Part I Case Overview According to the first case, Anne purchased a terraced house in the Jubilee Street. The house number was 13 and it adjoined two other houses numbered 11 and 15 respectively. During purchasing the house, she was said by her solicitor that there would not be any problem from those two houses. However, a few days later it was found that in between house no. 15 and 17 there was a passageway, which was blocked by Brian through a gate who was the owner of house number 17. In this context, both the parties Anne and Brian possess their respective rights and responsibilities that would help them to solve the problem. As Anne has purchased the house, therefore she possesses the same right to the passage equal to that of Brain. Brain is not liable to put a gate across the passage in order to restrict Anne from passing through the passage1,2. In this scenario, both the parties can negotiate as they have the right of way. Right of way is the right which is enjoyed by both the parties over others land. In this case, Brian is obstructing the right of way of Anne. The case Parsons & Anor v Thatchers Wood Residents Company Ltd & Ors Lawtel AC9700880 (2011) is relevant to the case wherein the court implemented “substantial interference” test for proper judgement3. According to the second case, Brenda an employee, of a local bank found an envelope containing 25 notes, which she puts in her pocket. When the bank manager accuses her that she has been caught in the CCTV and asks her to return the money, she refuses and in justification she says that the law states finders keepers. However, as per the Contract Law of the UK it is stated that any individual can have the ownership of a property even if it is not possessed by him/her. In context of this case scenario, as Brenda has found the notes she has the full right to keep them with her because there is no proof that the notes belong to the bank4. Moreover, there is no other person to claim; therefore, Brenda would be the ultimate owner of the notes as per the contract law. In this situation, bank can claim their money if they can provide any authentic evidence that those notes belongs to the bank5. In this context, Brenda holds the possession of the notes, which she found in her entrance lobby as per the law of “finders keepers”. The case Parker v British Airways Board1 All ER 834 (1982) is relevant to the given scenario where the court implemented “finders keepers” for an appropriate judgement6. As per the third case scenario, Danielle has purchased the house of Eric and she was being betrayed by Eric during the purchasing of house. Two things attracted Danielle in purchasing the house. The statue situated in the garden of the house and a garden shed that was constructed on a construction base7. After purchase when Danielle was moving to the new house, she found that the statue and the garden shed were missing. According to Danielle, Eric was betrayed, due to misrepresentation of the fact regarding the property dispute. However, in this case none of the two parties should be accused because Eric possesses the complete right to take away the garden shed and the statue as no such written document or agreement signed declaring that the owner cannot take away any properties. Moreover, from the view point of Danielle, she is has the right to charge as it can be stated as misrepresentation of the property showed because being the potential owner of the house she has the right to get all the properties that are present in the house8. In this situation, Danielle does not have any written proof that can be shown as evidence before the court regarding the claim of the two properties that are not being provided to Danielle with the house. Without evidence, the court also cannot take any measures against Eric9,10. In this scenario, the case of Bisset v Wilkinson AC 177 (1927) can be taken into concern where misrepresentation of data took place. However, as per the final case scenario Fredrick found some metal coins in Giless farmland, which he takes in his pocket and started walking towards his home across the fields that were probably being owned by Henry. In the field, he was found jewelleries and gold, which he puts in a bag and takes them to his home. However, as per the law a person is not liable to take the property of any other person without prior informing the other party. In this case the gold and jewelleries found in the farmland belonged to Henry and therefore taking those properties without intimating Henry would be considered stealing, which is a severe offence in the UK11. Therefore, Fredrick does not possess any legal rights to the property that he acquired from the farmlands of Henry and it is the responsibility to return the gold and jewelleries to the respective owner. Even though, the properties were being found in the farmlands, Fredrick is not liable to take away those properties to his home12. Part B Case Overview With regard to the case scenario provided, it can be ascertained that specialist police named as Strike Team comprises of officers namely Claudette, Vic, Lem, Ronnie, Danielle, Shane and Dutch has been called to arrest Wilshire100 gang who was planning for robbing the Bank of England. Additionally, because of the dangerous scenario Strike Team members are advised to write their wills prior to going for their mission. As per the case provided, it has been affirmed that officers wrote the wills based on the willingness but based on the scenario unfortunately, officers advises the other members of team regarding their willingness of making significant correction and rectification in the wills, which creates the situation of dilemma. Advice to Claudette As per the case provided, it can be affirmed that Ronnie in his wills agreed to distribute 20,000 to Dutch and 100,000 for Claudette. However, during the encounter Ronnie was wounded asked Claudette to distribute 100,000 to Lem verbally, so that Lem can afford to move to America and establish a business. Thus, based on the wills signed earlier by Ronnie regarding distribution of 100,000, reveal that there, is proper offer and acceptance in terms of contract when he signed the will. Thus, it can be advisable to Claudette that owing to the reason withdrawn of contract agreement was signed earlier by Ronnie and take back the ownership 100,000. However, in accordance to the clause of offer in English law an offer can be valid even if stated verbally. In this scenario, it has been reflected that there is no sign of acceptance from Claudette over the Ronnie perception. Thus, it based on the willingness of Claudette were he wanted to distribute the money to Lem or not the same was witnessed in case of [Stover v Manchester City Council]13,14. Advice to Dutch Based on the case scenario, it can be affirmed that Ronnie in his will agreed to give 20,000 to Dutch. However, during encounter Ronnie grab Dutch and ask to distribute half of money to Tina for her art classes. Moreover, the scenario of the case highlighted that Dutch through nodding his head agreed the proposal of Ronnie. However, in accordance to the clause offer terms to be valid if it has been made by words and it has been reflected Dutch have accepted it. Thus, Dutch is been advice the distribute half of the money to Tina. In this case, scenario, similar case was seen with regard to [Hyde v Wrency]15,16. Advice to Corrine According to case scenario, Vic during the time of signing the wills affirmed that after his death, all his property would be distributed in respect of Police and Families Charitable Organisation (PFCO) and Corrine married to Vic. Besides, during the encounter Vic died thus, Corrine has no right to claim in respect the property of Vic. On the other hand, Corrine is having affair with Danielle, which does not bound Danielle to compel domestic arrangements, so Corrine again not entitle for any remuneration and benefits from him [Balfour v Balfour]17,18. Advice to Danielle Apparently, it has been reflected from the provided case scenario that Danielle prior to encounter with Wilshire100s gang in Bank of England does not sign any contract regarding his wills to distribute his property to anyone. Likely, during the time Danielle does not face any saviour injury or anything. Besides, the scenario reflected that Danielle is having affair with Corrine who is wife of Vic (other officers). As affirmed earlier the relationship in which Corrine and Danielle does not comes under the domestic agreement thus Corrine have no right towards the property of Danielle and if the scenario arises Danielle can take effectively take action through taking legal action against her[Balfour v Balfour]19,20. Advice to Nina According to the scenario of the case, it has been reflected Shane have the confidence that nothing will happen to him during the encounter with Wilshire100s gang and because of which he does not sign the contract of wills. However, during the encounter Shane died in the encounter on the other hand Shane is having a girlfriend name Nina during the time death. Besides, there is respect of laciness of express term of contract between Shane and Nina; Nina will not be entitled to claim for any remuneration in the property of Nina21. Advice to Mara Besides, the case scenario reveals that fact that Mara divorced with Shane during the year 2011 and the incident was held in the year 2015 in which Shane died. Besides, in regard, based on the laciness of the implied terms of contract between Mara and Shane, Mara is advice that she can only ask for the compensation if she is bounded with the legal contractual agreement to compensate share of money in Shane property [Shirlaw v Southern Foundries]22,23. References Austen-Baker, R. Implied terms in English contract law. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK, 2011. Allen & Overy. Basic Principles of English Contract Law. Advocates for International Development , 2015 (accessed 31st March 2015). Bar, C. V. & Drobnig, U. The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe: A Comparative Study. sellier. European law publ, UK, 2004. Chen-Wishart, M. Contract Law. Oxford University Press, UK, 2012. Cartwright, J. Contract Law: An Introduction to the English Law of Contract for the Civil. A&C Black, UK, 2014. Felgentrager, F. English Contract Law. Journal, , 2004 (accessed 31st March 2015). Fried, C. Contract as Promise, Journal, , 1981 (accessed 31st March 2015). MacMillan, C. & Stone, R. Elements of the law of contract. Journal, , 2012 (accessed 31st March 2015). Monahan, G. Essential Contract Law. Journal, , 2001 (accessed 31st March 2015). Park College. ‘Law of contracts’. Business Law Including Company Law, 2015, pp. 1-19. Parry, S, D, H. Contracts in English Law. Journal, , 1959 (accessed 31st March 2015). Rodgers, L. Finders keepers, losers weepers. BBC, , 2015 (accessed 31st March 2015). Stone, R. & Devenney, J. Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law. Routledge, USA, 2014. Simeone, J. J. ‘Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers”: The Law of Finding “Lost” Property in Missouri.’ Saint Louis University School of Law, 2014, pp. 167-186. Weitzenbock, E. M. English Law of Contract: Consideration. Norwegian Research Center for Computers & Law, , 2012 (accessed 31st March 2015). Legal Cases References Barr Ellison LLP Solicitors. Property, Boundary & Rights of Way Disputes. Litigation & Disputes, , 2015 (accessed 31st March 2015). Lawnix. Hyde v. Wrench – Case Brief Summary. Cases, , 2013 (accessed 31st March 2015). Lawnix. (2013a). Balfour v. Balfour – Case Brief Summary. Cases, , 2013a (accessed 31st March 2015). Legal Resource Centre of Alberta. Law Now. When It Hurts To Be Home, , 2015 (accessed 31st March 2015). Swarb.co.uk. Shirlaw -v- Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd; CA 1939. Case Law, , 2014a (accessed 31st March 2015). Swarb.co.uk. (2014). Storer -v- Manchester City Council; CA 1974. Case Law, , 2014a (accessed 31st March 2015). Read More