Barts Potential Contractual Liability to Poppy - Assignment Example

CONTRACT ASSIGNMENT STUDENT NAME PROFESSOR’S NAME COURSE TITLE DATE a) Barts potential contractual liability to Poppy The issue is whether Bart has a contractual liability to Poppy for failing to sell the painting on display in his shop. According to Bart, the painting meant for display at the shop and not for sale. A contract defined as a legally binding promise or covenant between two or more parties and a breach of the contract gives rise to rights and remedies1.An offer according to its definition in contract is “an expression of willingness for a person to contract on a specified terms with an intention to be binding once it is accepted”2. In the case of Fisher v Bell3 shopkeeper had displayed a knife with a price tag on the window though the Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to “offer for sale “a flick knife4. According to the decision of Lord Parker, he stated, “the display of an article with a price tag on a shop window is merely an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale of which the acceptance would constitute a contract”. In order for an offer to be sufficient, it must have an objective manifestation that there is an intention by the offeror to bind him to the offer in any instance any willing offeree accepts it5. A sufficient offer needs to be express or implied by conduct. It is a generally accepted principle set in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Southern) Ltd6 that the display of goods in a shelf or any self-service store is an invitation to treat and not an offer. The case of Fisher v Bell distinguishes Bart’s case since he had not named a price on the painting making it an invitation to treat nor an offer and therefore he had no contractual liability to Poppy. b) Lovely’s Lighting Ltd’s liability to Bart under the law of contract and tort The issue is whether Lovely’s Lighting Ltd (LLL) breached the contract with Bart by printing the wrong name sign “Artyfarti” as opposed to the agreed name sign of “Artybarti”. Mistakes are common in performance of contracts. In this case the mistake is a unilateral mistake where the party to the contract is mistaken. In the case of Smith v Hughes7 the claimant purchased new oats thinking they were old oats based on the sample given. However, he needed it for horse feed the claimant was aware of the mistake but failed to act. The court held that this was a mistake relating to quality and not fundamental to the contract’s performance. In the case of Hartog v Colin & Shield’s8 the court held that hare skins were sold per piece and given the price he could have realized the mistake. A breach of contract occurs whereby one party to the contract fails to completely carry out their obligations under the contract. This is in instances where a person makes a promise to do one thing but when he performs the task, he delivers something different quality, quantity and does not meet the descriptions. If the contract is void for mistake, then Bart can recover the amount advanced for the purchase of the sign. Moreover, the offer and acceptance must match a long-standing precedent. The next issue is whether LLL is liable to pay for the cost of the valuable painting that was lost because of the spreading fire from the burning sign. In order for liability to arise in relation to the painting then it must have a “sufficient nexus” to the breach of contract by LLL. In the case of Hadley v Baxendale9, the rule or remoteness of damage was set in order for one to recover damages in tort. The cases stated that one could recover losses, which may reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or for that which may reasonably be contemplated by the parties at time of making the contract. This principle later restated in the case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd10 where a claimant having purchased a boiler in use for dying and laundry business the defendant breached the contract by delivering it late. The delay made the claimant lose a lucrative contract lost due to absence of boiler. The court held that they could only recover losses that were within the reasonable contemplation of the contract. Before a person is awarded damages, then one must demonstrate that they mitigated the loss, or took reasonable steps to mitigate the loss11. In the case of Payzu v Saunders12 the court held that the claimant was not entitled to damages since he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss by accepting the discounted offer. In the case of Bart, he tried to mitigate the loss by trying to put out the fire by using a fire extinguisher even though he trips, however he is entitled to recover from LLL for the loss. Lastly, the issue is whether LLL is liable to pay Bart damages and any other compensation for the injuries he incurred while trying to extinguish the fire and save the painting from completely burning. In contract law, for one to claim damages as a remedy for breach of contract then it must be able to place the injured party to the position they had been if the contract had been performed as contemplated13. In many instances, before an award of damages is given it must conform to the rules of causation. In the case of The Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns Oljefabrika [1949] AC 196 the claimant having purchases a quanity of soya beans shipped by the defendant vessel which developed problems causing delays. During this period, war broke out and the ship was unloaded in Glasgow. The plaintiff in seeking to recover costs, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had a duty to provide a sea worthy vessel while the defendant stated that the war broke the chain of causation. The court held that the war did not break the chain of causation since the delay in the voyage occasioned by the vessels diversion. In line with the decision of Addis v Gramophone14 damages ought to be paid as an adequate compensation for any amount lost for which he would have received had the contract been kept and no more. In the case of Bart v LLL the chain of causation had not been broken since if LLL had printed the correct words on the sign and given a quality sign that could not easily catch fire, Bart would not have suffered the loss and injuries,. c) Bart’s potential contractual liability to Rosie The issue is whether Bart is entitled to honor the contract between him and Rosie for the £50 reward of finding the dog. This is after Bart decided to put a poster on his window offering the reward. In many instances, an offer can be addressed to a single person or a group of person or the world at large and an instance is where a person offers a reward through a reward poster. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Carbolic Smokeball Co15, a company placed an advertisement that if anyone used their remedy and then caught the flu they would be entitled to $100. The plaintiff brought a claim and the defendant stated there was no contract. The court however held that an offer can be made to the whole world and it will bind all those that fulfill the conditions set out in the contract16. It is important to discuss the case of R v Clarke17 though a ruling of the high court of Australia, it sheds light on issues relating to rewards. In the case’ a reward was offered to anyone who would give information that would lead to the conviction of the murders. The court held that Clarke did not act with the intention or in reliance “on the offer or with the intention of entering into any contract” but to protect himself. This case compared to Gibbons v Proctor18 whereby a policeman who was unaware of the offer of a reward at the time he gave information. He only became aware of the reward when giving the information. On the other hand, in the case of Williams v Carwardine19 gives a perspective on the reliance of an offer in the performance of a contract. In the case, a reward offered for information leading to the conviction of the murder of Walter Carwidine. Mrs. Williams having given information in the previous proceedings failed to discuss the entire occurrence of events and her husband having beaten her and for fear of death, she revealed information about the murderer. The court held that there was a valid contract since the information was available in the whole of Hereford and any person who performed the condition without motivation would get the reward. It sets the precedent that mutual consent and communication of acceptance is not important in cases of rewards. In the case of Rosie, she returned the dog and then noticed the sign. It therefore means that the offer was open to any person who would perform the contract and was therefore binding on Bart to give Rosie the reward money. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Furmston PM , Cheshire, Fifoot&Furmston’s Law of Contract ( 16th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) Joseph C and Gordon A, Chitty on Contracts (Sweet & Maxwell 1983) Trietel GH, Treitel on the Law of Contract (9th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1995) Reynell AW, Anson’ s Law of Contract. (27thedn, Clarendon Press 1997) Cases Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co (1893) 1 QB 256 (CA) Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394 Hartog v Colin & Shield’s (1939] 3 All Er 566 Moran v University College Salford (No 2), The Times, November 23, 1993 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Southern) Ltd [1960] Stovar v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 K.B 528 Read More