Breach of Contract as a Major Issue in the Law of Contract - Essay Example

SЕ АNАLYSIS ЕSSAY Name Institution Course Tutor Date Breach of contract is a major issue in the law of contract. This essay will talk about the issue associated with a contract and how a contract is breached. The paper looks at the claims related to a breach of contract. Various issues associated with terms of a contract and failure of the parties to comply with those terms hold up the contract law1. The essay’s argument will be based on an applicable case law related to the provided case, which gives evidence of the argument. The case states that Josh and Julie engaged into a contract with both Steward and Brendan. Steward and Brendan were separately required to conduct renovation activity to the house of Josh and Julie. However, some issues came up and the contract was breached since the house was not renovated as Josh and Julie expected. The findings led to the conclusion that Josh and Julie could claim against Steward and Brendan for breach of contract. The essay will also identify if Steward and Brendan are able to take action against Josh. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854) identify that an infringed party is allowed to take an action and claim against breach of contract2. In this scenario, there was breach of a contract whereby Josh and Julie posted an advertisement in the local newspaper requiring a contractor who would help them renovate their house by supplying the required timber materials, as suggested by Josh and fixing the materials at the selected area. Consequently, Steward and Brendan responded to the advertisement quoting different prices for the installation of floating timber flooring, but at different dates. Due to power outage, it was not possible to receive Steward’s email and Josh decided to work with Brendan3. Steward had quoted a lower price ($28) compared to Brendan’s price ($30). Brendan began the contract one day before delivery of Steward’s email. However, it rained heavily and the new room was flooded, a piece of the land under the room had subsided, and the floor collapsed. The entire mess resulted from Brendan’s habit of leaving the door to the room open with the aim of allowing the enclosed space to ventilate. Additionally, Brendan had placed his tool bag over the drainage outlet not far from the door and this caused the flooding. The case indicates that Brendan played his role of fixing the timber flooring as directed by Josh. However, Brendan failed to be careful about possible destruction that might occur in the process. It is evident that in Brendan’s response, he had quoted; “Provider accepts no responsibility for defects in workmanship.” Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987) identify that once an offer is placed and the other party indicates an acceptance, the practice is deemed to have led to creation of a contract4. Josh agreed to work with Brendan despite the exclusion clause that was binding the parties5. Brendan tried to apologize but Josh did not listen to his apologies just to let him go with an agreement that he would call Brendan once the flooding is over to work at a cheaper price. On the other hand, Josh did not allow Brendan to complete the work the following day. After opening his email and finding Steward’s response, engaged Steward in the contract stating that he was the cheapest quote. Steward was to complete the work once the floor is efficient for working6. Neri v. Retail Marine Corp., 30 N.Y.2d 393, 334 N.Y.S.2d 165 (N.Y. 1972) laid the claims associated with breach of a contract, similar cases offered some clarification of the aspects that required to be considered for allowing claims in breach of contract7. The first aspect is the finding in Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854), that failure to perform as per the contract results to breach of contract8. In this scenario, Josh agreed to work with Brendan and complete the work, but after working at least halfway, Josh refused to work with him because of the damage that was caused to the area of work9. According to Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Limited v New garage and Motor Co Limited [1915] AC79, the exclusion clause sets the party free from any damage10. In this scenario, Brendan was not responsible for the destruction caused, but Josh failed to follow the terms and conditions of the contract. On the other hand, Steward had sent his email earlier enough, but failed to be delivered because of severe storm, which led to power outage. The work started later after Steward had sent his email, indicating acceptance of the offer11. Additionally, when Josh was having a conversation with Steward, he stated that Steward had the cheapest quote. In the advertisement, Josh had stated that best quote would not be refused. It might be argued that Josh failed to follow the terms and conditions of a contract because of not considering Steward’s email. The second aspect is that damage was caused before completion of the contract. In this case, Josh has the right to claim for compensation because of the damage that was negligently caused. Brendan could have avoided placing his tool bag on the drainage outlet n ear the door to prevent flooding, but he failed to act reasonably and this was the cause of the flooding. Robinson v Euro Earth Works Ltd [2011] All ER (D) 100 (Mar) found that when the employee’s conduct is critical that it breaches the contract, the employer is allowed to dismiss him/her for misconduct12. Josh dismissed Brendan without giving him a notice or listening to his apologies. Robinson v Euro Earth Works Ltd [2011] All ER (D) 100 (Mar) argues that when an employer dismisses a worker without informing him/her on time, this indicates breach of contract13. It is stated that Brendan had already fixed 55 square meters out of the 100 square meters need in the house. Due to the fact that the rain had caused the damage to the work already done, and Josh was annoyed by the habit of Brendan leaving the tool box at the drainage outlet leading to flooding and the entire damage, Josh did not allow his to finish his job14. In Scherer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 975 F.2d 356, 59 FEP 1301 (7th Cir. 1992) breach of contract through dismissal of the employee without a notice entitles the employee’s ability to claim for breach of contract15. Brendan tried to apologize to Josh and stating that he would complete the work at a reduced price once the floor is sound, but Josh did not listen to him. In Scherer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 975 F.2d 356, 59 FEP 1301 (7th Cir. 1992) the legal court established that it is necessary for the person claiming action for breach of contract to prove the breach with consideration of the terms and conditions of a contract16. The third aspect of claim of breach of contract is that for a contract to be created, there has to be an offer and acceptance. Josh placed an offer by posting the advertisement17. Consequently, Steward responded to the offer and emailed the response, but it was not delivered to Josh until later after Josh had started working with Brendan. It is noticeable that Steward had posted the acceptance on time. On the other hand, Josh failed to receive the email because of unavoidable circumstances whereby there was power outage, which led to the delay in delivery of the email. Steward, could claim for breach of contract because Josh failed to comply with the contract terms and conditions. The question of whether Josh and Julie’s legal rights and obligations allowed them to claim against breach of contract is answered. Josh and Julie had the right of receiving good quality work from Brendan. Moreover, Josh and Julie had the obligation of following the terms and conditions of the contract. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854) stated that the parties in a contract and bound by the terms and conditions of the particular contract18. Breach of contract by one of the parties allows the infringed party to raise claims in a court of law. Based on the facts available in this case, Josh and Julie had the right to quality work from Brendan19. On the other hand, Josh had the obligation of issuing a notice to Brendan before his dismissal. Additionally, the action taken by Brendan and Steward could be successful because they both have the proof to the breach of contract by Josh. This essay has created, with reference to some relevant case laws, the appropriate aspects of arguing a case for breach of contract, and the aspects have been functional to the legal facts identified in the case20. It can be identified that Brendan was responsible for the breach of contract in that he negligently led to the destruction of the renovation work. In light of this case, Josh and Julie could take an action against Brendan and could have recovered the damage worth 55 square meters of the flooring timber, as it is in the case Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987)21. However, Brendan and Steward are unlikely to be proficient in taking action against Josh, as Josh would not allowed continued damage of his work and was not in a position to control power outage, which led to delivery lateness of Steward’s email. Josh would not have realized the sending of Steward’s email because the storms had hindered his ability to access his email. Bibliography Ben-Shahar, Omri, and Eric A. Posner. "The right to withdraw in contract law." The Journal of Legal Studies 40, no. 1 (2011): 115-148. Cartwright, John. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. (A&C Black, 2014.) Chen-Wishart, Mindy. Contract law. (Oxford University Press, 2012.) Friedman, Lawrence M. Contract law in America: a social and economic case study. (Quid Pro Books, 2011.) Hillman, Robert. Principles of Contract Law, 3d (Concise Hornbook Series). (West Academic, 2013.) McKendrick, Ewan. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. (Oxford University Press (UK), 2014.) Poole, Jill. Casebook on contract law. (Oxford University Press, 2012.) Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.) Sullivan, Charles A. "Mastering the Faithless Servant: Reconciling Employment Law, Contract Law, and Fiduciary Duty." Wis. L. Rev. (2011): 777. Turner, Dennis F., and Alan Turner. Building contract claims and disputes. (Routledge, 2014.) Cases Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Limited v New garage and Motor Co Limited [1915] AC79 Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854) Neri v. Retail Marine Corp., 30 N.Y.2d 393, 334 N.Y.S.2d 165 (N.Y. 1972) Robinson v Euro Earth Works Ltd [2011] All ER (D) 100 (Mar) Scherer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 975 F.2d 356, 59 FEP 1301 (7th Cir. 1992) Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1987) Read More