Enforceability of the Contract between the Mother and Her Child - Assignment Example

Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 1.0 Problem one 3 2.0 Problem two 4 3.0 Problem three 6 4.0 Problem four 7 5.0 Problem five 9 1.0 Problem one a) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider? The issue to be considered here is the enforceability of the contract between the mother and her child. What is the different between the social agreement, domestic agreement and commercial agreement? b) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem For many years, the law of contract have explicitly distinguishes between the domestic agreement and commercial agreements. In most cases the law assumed that there is no intention to create any kind of legal relationship in the cases of social and domestic agreements. Some of the cases include Jones v Padavatton (1969)1 in this case the Judge decided that the member of the family do not intend to make agreement among them to have legal agreement. In this case, the mother persuaded here daughter to resign as a secretary and read for a bar in England and in the process the mother would provide for her. But later the mother change the agreement terms and provided a house instead2. c) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem? The main case is lack of performance of the part of contract agreement. Though the child has performed his part, the mother has failed to fulfill her part. Hence breaching the contract she has made d) Based on this information, if Chloe sues her mother for breach of contract, will she win in court? What is your answer – Yes? or No? Explain your answer. No. there family agreements does not meet the threshold of legal contract has they are being made without intention to be legally enforceable. This is presented in the case of Jones v Padavatton (1969)3 and the case of Balfour v Balfour (1919) ,here the court decided that the husband did not make this agreement with the intend to make legal agreement. 2.0 Problem two a) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider? (1mark) The issue here is misrepresentation of the fact which amount to fraud. Since Tony gave an offer to Julie which Julie accepted? The acceptance was to specific conditions which the tractor had to meet before it could be accepted by Julia; Tony gave Julia wrong information concerning the goods to be bought hence fraud. Fraudulent misrepresentation or a deceit is where one makes false statement made either knowingly or not believing in the truth about it or careless and reckless without minding the truth or fact in it. The case of the same is Derry Vs Peek (1889)4 b) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem? (1mark) Incase the misrepresentation is fraudulent in nature or, rebuttable presumption that it induced contract; then it is actionable by law and the person who has make that inducement is personally liable. The case in hand is Dadourian Group International Inc.Vs. Simms (Damages) (2009)5. In our case, Tony induce Julia to enter into a contract of buying the tractor but Tony knew very well that the tractor does not meet the requirements in which Julia needed it for. c) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem? (1 mark) The case is misrepresentation of fact which amount to inducement of hence punishable by law. Tony owe July duty of disclosing fact concerning the contract but if July would have known the fact the Tony would have not been affected by not telling Julie what she already knows before entering into the contract this is the same case in Keates v. The Earl of Cadogan (1851); and also in Turner v. Green (1895) the same case was also in the case of Bell v. Lever Bros. Ltd. (1932) d) Based on this information, if Julia sues Tony for breach of contract, will she win in court? What is your answer – Yes? Or No? Explain your answer. (2 marks) Yes, she would win the court case. Since Julie is innocent in this case therefore is up to her either to rescind or to affirm contract if he rescind the contract then they will go back to square one and if she confirm the contract then she will be deemed to have accepted the contract as it was therefore loses every right to be compensated. 3.0 Problem three a) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider? (1mark) The issue of the discussion here is whether the social agreement is enforceable by law as Russell fails to owner the agreements to pay his friend $1000 after he has sold out the car. The question to be asked here is whether the friendship promise and agreement which Russell mad amount to contract which is enforceable by law or not. b) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem? (1mark) In the case of Coward v MIB (1962)6, a friend agreed to take petrol money and in exchange of a job which later turns out not to be the case has the friend failed to give him the job. The court held that, an agreement which was mad out of friendship to work in exchange of petrol money was a friendship arrangement therefore lacks contractual intention. The same case applies in our case. The gift of $1000 if the car is sold above the target price is out of friendship hence lack contractual intention hence not enforceable by law. c) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem? (1 mark) The main case is that of Coward v MIB (1962)7, his friend failed to take his work in exchange of petrol money as initially agreed upon. d) Based on this information, if Greta sues Russell for breach of contract, will she win in court? What is your answer – Yes? or No? Explain your answer. (2 marks) No, he will not win the case, this is because the agreement is out of social relationship or friendship which had no intention to make contractual agreement hence he will lose the case. Similar decision was held in the case of Coward v MIB (19628 where the court said that the friend’s agreement lacks intention to enter into contractual agreement. 4.0 Problem four a) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider? (2marks) Is whether he actually consented to the risk or not, this is majorly in law of tort where volenti non fit Injuria applies. Secondly, the act by elephant amount to inevitable accident where no precautions could have been taken to prevent it by the defendant or not. b) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem? (2marks) The general rule here is that, no one can complain to any harm he has personally consented to. The owner of the car actually read the instructions that the management will not be liable incase of any damage the car gets in the parking, by going a head to park, then that implies that he has personally consented to the risk hence no case against the management. In the second part, there is no negligence in the part of the management as the accident is inevitable. c) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem (2marks) In the case of Stanley vs. Powell (18919) the bullet rebound back after heating the tree and heat the complainant hence the defendant was not liable because what happened was as a result of accident. In the case Khimji Vs Tanga Mombasa Transport Co. Ltd (1962)10, the driver yielded to the pressure from the passengers who wanted to cross the swollen river hence they consented to the risk of crossing the swollen river. d) In each scenario, based on this information, if Guy sues the NRL for breach of contract will he win in court? What are your answers – Yes? or No? Explain your answer. (4 marks) No the guys would not win the case since he willingly consented to the risk by parking the car as in the case of Stanley vs. Powell (1891) and in the case of case Khimji Vs Tanga Mombasa Transport Co. Ltd (1962)11. 5.0 Problem five a) What is the issue you need to consider? (1 mark) The issue to be considered here is whether the contractual agreement had existed between the two parties or not. If the contract had existed then, the legal actions of breach of contract existed and if not then, there is no contractual obligation between the parties b) What is (or are) the relevant legal rule (or rules) relating to this problem? (1 mark) The breach of contractual agreement is punishable by law and remedies include compensation and specific performance of the contract. c) What is (or are) the main case (or cases) related to this problem? (1 mark) Breach of contract occurs if the parties to the contract fail to perform their duties resulting to the breach. Some cases include, Bettini vs Gye 12and in the case of Poussard Vs Spiers13 d) Based on this information, if Susan sues Mac for a breach of contract will she win in court? What is your answer – Yes? or No? Explain your answer. (2 marks) Yes Susan would succed in sueing Mac since the breach of contract exist in their agreement but Mac have decided to rent the house a gain without her permission have leasing the house to her Read More