Breach of Duty of Care between a Doctor and Patients - Assignment Example

At the time of contracting, the parties had inserted in the contract a time factor clause within which the contract was to be executed and a penalty for breach imposed. As it were, the plaintiff, while fearing the effect of this clause, the plaintiff successfully engaged the defendant in an oral contract for additional funding amounting to £10,300 at a cost of £575 per each finished flat. After seven weeks of perfect completion of eight flats with substantial work in 17 flats, the defendant had only paid £1500 upon which the plaintiff ceased working. He brought this action claiming payment for £10,300. The issue was whether the oral contract was enforceable for lack of consideration.

1(a) what is the ratio decidendi of the case?

(ii)Ratio decidendi

The reasoning is that where there is a promise to pay some amount of money and that money is recoverable and enforceable; the defendant may be estopped in equity from denying the existence of that consideration and is referred to as past consideration. It was observed that in normal contractual agreements, a contract may be entered into by a written agreement, conduct or orally as observed by Chitty on Contracts. In the current case, this was a legally binding oral contract.

Furthermore, the Court stated that for a contract to exist there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations. In this case, all Judges observed that the oral contract was valid and that there was consideration evidenced by the defendant’s promise to pay an additional £10,300 which was relied upon by the plaintiff. This made the contract legally binding and enforceable. The only thing which would have vitiated that contract is if it was procured by mistake, fraud, duress, undue influence, or illegality. None of these factors were seen as available.

Besides, Court further observed that since the plaintiff had done such substantial work on seventeen flats with eight flats complete. So, he was entitled to that payment minus the amount worth the defect in the carpentry work done. Therefore, the appellant (defendant) was precluded from denying the promise made to pay the additional amount under the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel, which acts as a shield but not a sword.