The Common Law of England - Assignment Example

Student’s Name: Instructor: Subject: Course: Date: Law of Contract The common law of England with respect to contract categorizes contracts into three; specialty contract (written, signed, sealed), contracts of record, and simple contracts (agreements enforceable by courts). However, the common law of England commonly on what is referred to as ‘law of contract’ dwells much on simple contracts. Generally, a contract is an agreement that legally binds two or more parties (Laurence and Elizabeth 8). Besides, contract is also referred to as a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law provides a remedy and the performance of which the law recognizes as an obligation (Ibid 8). In this regard, all contracts are regarded as agreements although all agreements do not qualify as contracts. Reason being a contract imposes legally binding obligations on the parties involved. Basically, a contract comes into existence when one party to the contract makes an offer to the other (s) and which is unequivocally accepted. Besides, parties to a contract must have the requisite capacity to make a contract as well as some consideration must pass between them. Subsequently, parties to a contract must have aimed at instituting legal relations and the purpose of the agreement must have been legal. Another factor is the compliance to requisite legal formalities (William and Ernest 312). In order for a contract to be made, there are basic elements which must be met which are widely acceptable in the international law. First element is offer which refers to the unequivocal manifestation by one party of its intention to contract. The party manifesting is called offeror whereas the offeree is the one to whom the offer is made. Second element is acceptance which refers to the external manifestation of assent by offeree and acceptance renders the agreement to come into existence. Third element is capacity which is the legally recognized right of person to engage in a lawfully binding agreement. Fourth is consideration which in other words refers to ‘price paid by a party to a contract for the promise of the other party (Laurence and Elizabeth 56). Fifth element require an agreement to be entered into all manner prescribed by common law i.e. it can be entered into in writing, orally, partly writing and partly orally, or may be implied merely from a conduct. Sixth element is that the parties must have intended to have legal consequences resulting form the agreement. Eight element requires the contract to have terms i.e. conditions or warranties. Ninth element encompasses vitiating factors such as mistake, misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence. Tenth element is discharge of a contract either by breach, performance, and/or frustration whereas the last element concerns remedies for a breach of a contract. Generally, all issues relating to law of contract revolves around the aforementioned elements of contract although they may be referring to the elements in a more advanced manner. The aim of this assessment is to explain in an in-depth manner issues relating to law of contract given different scenarios (William and Orlando 360) . Scenario 1 In this case, Ralph went to Bridge Street Mall to do shopping and in the process found a camera displayed at Ballarat Electronics. Ralph liked it and enquired form Lauren, a salesman at Ballarat Electronics, how mush the camera was worth. Lauren responded to Ralph by telling him the camera was worth $ 250 which the latter said it was too much expensive. As a consequence, Ralph offered his best price of $ 200 for the camera to Lauren. It is presented that Lauren refused to take the offeree price by Ralph and said he cannot accept any price less than $ 250. Consequently, Ralph lefty Ballarrta Electronics and proceeded to other shops looking for a low-priced camera but he discovered that Ballarrat Electronics sold the camera at a cheaper price compared to other shops by $ 50. As a result Ralph returned to Lauren and said that he is willing to take the original price of $ 250 but at this time, Lauren refused to accept the offer price. Legal Issues Relating To Scenario 1 The legal principle in this scenario relates to the rules that govern termination of an offer. In the introduction, one of the basic elements required for an agreement to constitute a contract is offer –unequivocal manifestation by one party of its intention to contract with another. In this case, the party manifesting the intention i.e. offerror id Ralph and the one to whom the offer was made i.e. offeree is Lauren. Laurence and Elizabeth in their book notes that an offer may be terminated by insanity of either or both the parties, revocation by either party, lapsing of time, counter-offer, death of one party, rejection, and failure of a condition subject to which the offer was formed (8-47). However, the legal principle with respect to termination of relating to this case is both counter-offer and rejection. Ralph walked into the shop and asked for the price of the camera which he was informed was $ 250. In this regard, this cannot be regarded as an ‘invitation to treat’. In the law of contract, the marked price of goods displayed in shop windows, or catalogues mentioning prices of goods, does not as a rule constitute an offer as to compel the shopkeeper to sell those goods at the marked price. The prospective buyer, in this Ralph, by offering that price is himself the offerror, and his offer if accepted creates a binding agreement. This is the legal principle which was held in ‘Pharmaceutical Society of Britain vs Boots Chemists, 1953’ (Richard 47) and ‘Fisher vs Bell, 1961’ (Richard 50). From another perspective, the mere supply of information by Lauren concerning the lowest price he was willing to accept or sell the camera does not contain any implied condition to sell the camera at that price, $ 250, to Ralph. In this scenario, it is written that Lauren informed Ralph ‘I am sorry I cannot accept anything lower than $ 250’. This legal principle was held in ‘Harvey vs Facey, 1893’ (Richard 215). Harvey had telegraphed Facey requesting, ‘will you sell us Bumper hall Pen? Telegraph the lowest price’. Facey replied saying ‘lowest cash price for Bumper Hall Pen is £ 900. Harvey telegraphed back saying he agreed to the price of £ 900. However, Facey refused to sell Bumper Hall pen at £ 900 to Harvey and the latter sued contending there was a contract between them. The court held that Facey was not entitled to pay any damages to Harvey as in replying he was merely not stating the lowest cash price and not making an offer. The same legal principle applies in the case of Ralph and Lauren. Therefore, by being merely informed that Lauren cannot accept anything below $ 250, Ralph cannot use such basis to sue for damages. Consequently, Ralph if the offeror and Lauren is the offeree and the latter enjoys the right to any offer thus rendering formation of no contract. In this scenario, Ralph replied to Lauren by saying ‘that is too much; I offer you $ 200 for this camera’. By being offered this price, Lauren refused to take it thus terminating any chances of entering into the contact at the first instance. After Ralph checked in other shops, he found the same camera being sold at higher prices and thus returned to Lauren considering he sold at a cheaper price by $ 250. In this second case, he offered $ 250 which Lauren refused. In this regard, Ralph’s counter-offer of $ 200 against Lauren’s price of $ 250 is a counter-offer. On the other hand, when Ralph returned to buying the camera at original price of $ 250, this amounted to making a new offer separate from the first one and which Lauren rejected. This case similarly applies to conditions in ‘Hyde vs Wrench’, 1840’ (Richard 59). In this case Wrench presented in writing to sell his piece of land to Hyde for £ 1000 and Hyde made a counter-offer of £ 900. Wrench refused to accept the counter-offer but later Hyde through a letter agreed to pay £ 1000 which Wrench refused to accept. Hyde sued for specific performance in a court of law. The court of law ruled that there was no legal agreement, and specific performance could not be granted. Similarly, Ralph does not have any grounds to request a court of law to compel Lauren to sell the camera to him. Besides, rejection of the offer by Lauren applies similarly to the counter-offer. Therefore, if the offeree (Lauren) has once refused to accept the offer, subsequently he cannot change his mind and deliver his acceptance. In summary, there is no legal case for Ralph to seek damages whatsoever from Lauren in this scenario. Scenario 2 In this second scenario, it is provided that Craig took an expensive coat to Carter’s Dry Cleaners and was handed a receipt. On the front of that receipt, there was a number, Craig’s name, brief description of the coat and an acknowledgement that the coat will be ready for collection on the following Friday. On the reverse side, in a small print the following words were written, ‘we will not be responsible for any loss or damage of whatever nature or howsoever caused’. Consequently, on that Friday, Craig collected his coat and found burn marks on the collar which were caused by the dry cleaning process. This damage amounted to $ 195 and also a mobile phone which was hidden in a pocket of the coat was damaged. It has been Craig’s habit to take jis coat to Crater’s Dry Cleaners although this was the first instance to suffer such loss through dry cleaning process. Legal Issues Relating To Scenario 2 This case relates to one of the basic elements of a contract as mentioned in the introduction called ‘terms of a contract’. These are promise which the parties to contract make to each other and are usually classified as conditions or warranties. In respect of this case, the terms of contract applicable are exemption or exclusion clause. A party to a legal agreement may seek to avoid legal consequences or sentence to that effect. On the other hand, the clause may be intended to limit the legal consequences of the breach rather than avoidance thereof. Such sentences or paragraphs are known as ‘exemption clauses’ and they are founded on the theory of freedom of contract and are common in standard form contracts. The common law of England which is widely applied in most commonwealth countries, recognizes that a contract is an agreement which is freely entered into by parties who are ‘sui juris’ i.e. legally at par (Laurence and Elizabeth 15). Besides, a party to a contract which contained an exemption clause was legally bound it. After all, why would such a person agree to enter into the contract despite the clause? Such case applies to Craig; he voluntarily agreed to enter into a legal agreement with Crater’s Dry Cleaners. However, there are rules governing exemption clauses as the ancient English Law courts formulated. The first rule stipulates that an exemption clause has to be or form an fundamental part of the contract. Such a clause will only be enforced by a court of law if the document containing it, which is essentially a receipt for money paid, is an integral part of the contract and reasonable care was taken to bring it to the attention of the other party before the contract was made (Laurence and Elizabeth 1662. Besides, where one p[arty to the contract fails to carry out the basic obligation of the contract, the court does not allow him to rely on the exemption clause to escape liability. This can be illustrated in Chapelton vs Barry U.D.C 1940 (Richard 299). Chapelton hired a chair from defendant and paid four pence, obtained a receipt which he put in his pocket without reading what was on it. It was printed on the back that the defendant will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the use of chairs. When Chapelton sat on the chair, it collapsed and he was injured. Chapelton sued the defendant for damages. The court held that the printed exemption clause on the back of the receipt could not become the part of the contract as no reasonable care was taken to bring it to the attention of the plaintiff. Chapelton was entitled to succeed in damages. In another perspective, an exemption clause printed on reverse side of the receipt is not valid unless some special care was taken to bring to the notice of the other party. These similar conditions apply for Craig vs Crater’s dry cleaners. On the reverse side of the receipt that that Craig was given, the exemption clause was written in small print words. Thus it was not sufficiently conspicuous for Craig to see and read them. Besides, Carters Dry Cleaners did not make any effort to inform Craig about the exemption clause. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that because Craig has been frequenting the dry cleaners, he was aware of the exemption clause. Each time he brings coat to the dry cleaners, a new contract was made. Therefore, Craig can succeed to seek damages amounting to $ 195. On the other hand, the dry cleaners that Craig entrusted of having the relevant expertise did not accord reasonable care to avoid burning the coat. However, for the mobile phone, Caters dry cleaners were not entitled to pay. Reason being it is not usual for a coat being taken to a dry cleaner, to contain a mobile phone. In this regard, my advice to Craig is that they did not bring to his attention, the presence of an exemption clause contained in the receipt which was an integral part of the contract. Considering the above two cases, it is clear that the law of contract applies in major undertakings on everyday life. Thus having the relevant know-how in Law of contract would avoid breaching contracts. Work Cited Laurence, Koffman and Elizabeth, Macdonald. The law of contract. 6th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007 Richard, Stone. The Modern Law of Contract: seventh edition. 8th ed. London: Taylor & Francis, 2009 William, Reynell A and Ernest, Wilson H. Principles of the English law of contract and of agency in its relation to contract. 8th ed. California: The Banks Law Publishing Co., 1899. William, Reynell A and Orlando, Wesley A. Principles of the Law of Contract. New York: BiblioBazaar, 2010. Read More