Enforceable Contract between Joanna and Rita - Assignment Example

Contract Law Name Course Institution Date Q1 When Joanna decided to have the annual pay for her charity Wishkids, she wrote a note to Rita where she wanted to contract Rita to direct the play for a pay of 10% of the ticket sales. Rita expressed the desire to direct the same but sited some conditions that, it will be possible if the date for the play will not crush with her business trip to Perth. She was to give a full report on the date for the trip on Monday. However, on Friday afternoon, Joanna hears from another friend who was willing to direct the play for 5% of the ticket sales. Joanna writes to Rita telling her that she no longer requires her service for she has found another person. In this scenario, the most fascinating issue is determining whether a pledge or an intention can be enforceable. A legal contract or a binding agreement can be written or can even be in spoken works. Where in this case, there was an exchange of written notes between the two. However, for a contract to be enforceable, then there are some aspects that must be adhered to. First, there must be all the material terms or the promises which both parties made and must represent the offer by one party and an acceptance by the other1. In such an occurrence, both parties are entitled to ensuring that the meet the demands or keep the promise so that they can avert a breach of contract. As mentioned earlier, an enforceable contract must be the one which proves that one party made and offer and the other accepted the offer. There was no enforceable contract between Joanna and Rita. This is exonerated by the fact that, there was no acceptance of the contract due to the condition that Rita expressed. As for Joanna, she would have been sure that Rita will direct the play on Monday after she confirms that the dates will not collide with her trip. This therefore means that, this contract could have been enforceable only after she confirms her schedule. There was no binding contract between the two. There was only an offer and the confirmation of the offer was set for a certain date and therefore this contract cannot be enforced. The two parties had not agreed completely on the essential terms of the contract. Full agreement on all contractual terms is the best practice and this should be exercised throughout. However, when this is left for a future negotiation then there is an unenforceable agreement to agree and therefore the agreement is void as contract2. An agreement to enter into negotiations for a contract at a later date does not create enforceable contract. This therefore means that, when Rita decided to get back to Joanna at a later date, then the contract was not enforceable at all. When there is a condition, applied on a promise, then that promise is enforceable if the condition is respected. In this case, the contract was not confirmed by Friday, Rita had not confirmed whether she will be available or not. Therefore there was no enforceable contract amongst the two. Q2 Max owned a costume shop and Joanna expressed his desire to rent his costumes which he made some modifications so that they can meet her desires. Max then noticed that there Joanna had not signed the online order form. She calls her and Joanna assures her that she will fill the form when she gets time. Joanna gets other costumes for free. It will be hard for Max to hire the costumes to someone else for she will have to spend more time making then alterations again. Promissory estoppel prevents a party to a contract from acting in a certain way because they promised not to act in the certain ways, and the other party to the contract relied on that promise and acted upon it3. If two parties have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results. This therefore means that, this equitable principle prevents the culmination of injustice which is from an action of the promise in withdrawing his promise. As speculated in Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (Con-Stan Industries, it acts towards preventing a party from withdrawing from his promise or altering an earlier representation4. In actual facts, it also prevents an individual from denying the truth of a statement he made earlier, the one that caused him to change his mind or position. Promissory estoppels is applied when a party top contract promises another, by words to conduct, they he will enact his right under the contract wholly or partially5. When one makes a promise, then he is bound by it and will not be allowed to reiterate what he had stated earlier. Promissory estoppel is correlated to promise made in the present and regarding something to happen in the future. In this case, Joana made a promise to Max to hire his costumes. Through oral terms, they entered into a contract and thus there was a preexisting legal relationship which gave a certain assurance, and thus Max was to act in reliance on the assurance. Max already made modifications to the costumes so that they can meet the demands of Joanna and this means that it will cost him much time and resources to alter the changes when Joanna refuses to keep he promise. This can be counted as damages to Max and thus damages of the expectation can be awarded so as to satisfy an equity which is arising from estoppels. The maximum equity to do justice should be awarded. And in this case, the damage suffered by Max should be compensated. Having promised Max that she will fill the online order when she gets time, it gave Max more assurance that the contract still stands and thus he continued working so as to meet the contract. This being the case, estoppels creates equity, a right capable of satisfaction by court. There was an agreement which in the long run creates personal rights which had to be adhered to so as not to cause damages to Max this concludes the notion that promissory estoppels is very relevant to the dispute between Max and Joanna. Q2 Joanna had the posters printed by Xtreme printing which was sent to them through email. Unfortunately, there was a wrong date printed on them but she did not notice and therefore people turn up on the wrong date. The attendance at the play was therefore lawyer that expected to the disappointment of the children who were expecting to benefit from the tickets sales. According to Xtreme printing firm, they do not accept responsibility for any errors or defects whatsoever in the material printed. According to Joanna and the children, they face an unfair contract term. Unfair contract term is the one which causes one party to a contract to be at a disadvantage, while the term in not necessary for the protection of the interested parties. They cause imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under contracts to the disadvantage of the customer who in this case happens to be Joanna. There are many instances when remedies can be sought in regard to unfair terms of but are not limited to financial detriment. First of all Joanna never knew of the conditions of the contract. Terms and conditions do clear the rights and the responsibilities of both parties to the contract6. The law dictates that, the business must take into consideration the customer rights when preparing the contract. In the other case, the client is supposed to be made aware of the conditions that are employed in the contract so that they can negotiate the same7. They were supposed to have given her all the conditions in writing or words in the contract which never happened in this case. This therefore entails that; both parties can claim damages from the detrimental effects that were caused by the condition. The business may have genuine commercial reasons for including their conditions and therefore there is a need to prove that the reasons were to protect the interests of the business. The term already caused financial detriment to both parties. This means that, they have an obligation to make sure that their damages are taken care of. At the same time, detriment such as delay and distress among the children who waited for the money as a result of the unfair term can cause the courts to demand payment of the damages. Lack of transparency in connection to the standard form consumer contract can cause an imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations. It should be available, legible, and presented clearly, in this case it was not clear and that is why it escaped the visibility of Joanna. As it is explained in Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, 2048 . This condition removes blame from the printers even when the mistake maybe from their side. This therefore means that, they have a right to claim the damages which were incurred as a result of the unfair contract condition. Work cited Arnow-Richman, supranote 31, at 981; see also Russell Korobkin, Bounded Rationality, Standard Form Contracts, and Unconscionability, 70 U.CHI.L.REV. 1203, 1203 (2003) Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226 at 244 [Con-Stan Industries]. Gerard McMeel, 2007The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification(Oxford University Press, Oxford, ) at 367. John McKenna 2009 "Estoppel by Convention and the Sanctity of Contract" (paper presented to the Current Legal Issues Seminar Series, Queensland) at 1 Margaret M. Harding, The Redefinition of Arbitration by Those with Superior Bargaining Power , 1999 UTAH L.REV. 857, 862–63: Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197, 204 (Wilson and Toohey JJ) Richard Lawson, 2000. Exclusion Clauses & Unfair Contract Terms, 6thedition, Sweet & Maxwell, p186 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Standing Committee on Law and Justice, NSW Legislative Council, Report 32 (November 2006), citing evidence from the NSW Commissioner of Fair Trading, at p.22 Read More