The Law of Contract Concerning Belinda and Adam - Case Study Example

The Law of Contract; Belinda and Adam Cases: Name: Lecturer: Course: Institution of Affiliation. The Law of Contract; Belinda and Adam Cases. Introduction Legal rights to ‘persons’ would not be having real value unless there are remedies to enforce them. In fact, the Latin maxim, ‘Ubi jus, ibi remedium’ refers that ‘where there is a right, there is a remedy.’ The case at hand between Adam and Belinda presents legal facts regarding elements of a valid contract and types of remedies available to either party in a contract incase of violation by one party. Further more, the Adam and Belinda case, stages the extent to which courts award remedies. According to Gibson & Fraser (2010) the essentials for an enforceable contract include; competent parties, an offer, a legal subject matter, acceptance and consideration. On the other hand, the remedies in case of breach of contract are; suit for rescission, quantum meruit, specific performance, damages and/or injunction (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Normally, there are two parties in case of a breach, the ‘guilty party’ and the ‘injured’ or ‘ aggrieved’ party. As an expert in Contract Law, this paper seeks to examine the Adam’s and Belinda’s case in the two situations provided and offer legal advice to both, accordingly. Prerequisites’ of a contract case. The prerequisite in the examination of any ‘contract case’ is its legality or rather it’s enforceability in a court of law. Legal jargon defines the ‘guilty party’ as one who breaches the contract whereas the other party is known as the ‘aggrieved party’ or the ‘injured party’. According to the cases at hand, Adam is considered the ‘guilty party’ where Belinda is the ‘aggrieved party’. Gibson & Fraser (2010) asserts that all the elements of a contract ought to be adhered to for the Belinda v Adam case to be enforceable. Accordingly, we assume (since it’s only indicated that ‘Adam and Belinda’ entered into a contract and had an agreement) that before entering into the contract on 1st January 2011 there was, firstly, an offer (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).There was the intention by Adam to build the extension of Belinda’s house and Belinda’s specific performance was payment. Either, of the two may have initiated the offer (Gibson & Fraser 2010).Gibson & Fraser (2010) affirms that ‘an offer’ is normally amongst the initial engagements towards establishment of a contract. Secondly, Adam and Belinda must have been in agreement of the initiated offer to build the extension at a price or cost (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Thirdly, there was consideration, a two-sided bargain between Belinda and Adam. Each party furnished or promised to provide some consideration in exchange of what the second party provided (Gibson & Fraser 2010). In deed, Belinda payment on one side and Adam construction services on the other.Next, Adam and Belinda ought to have contractual capacity (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Even though the general rule is that everyone is capable of entering into a contract, there are a few exceptions that will make a contract voidable. These exceptions include; infancy, insanity, organizations’ engagement in ultra vires dealings among others. Further more, the contract between Belinda and Adam must be of a legal nature. Illegality will certainly invalidate any Belinda v Adam case in principal (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Finally, Belinda and Adam ought to have had the intention of creating a legal relation and both consented informed by reality. There was no coercion or misrepresentation of material facts while entering into the contract (Gibson & Fraser 2010).These prerequisites allow the enforceability of the contract between Belinda and Adam. Belinda and Adam legal options. According to Gibson & Fraser (2010) Adam and Belinda had a contract having complied with these essentials of a valid contract, hence enforceable by a court of law. As the legal adviser to both Adam and Belinda, each client has to weigh the available options and choose the best fit to minimize costs. Primarily, Adam would have to breach the contract; hence he may opt to avoid being arraigned in court by Belinda or defend his case in court in such a manner that it attracts the least compensation. According to the first case, the available time between February (when he noticed the shortage of funds) and 31st July, is sufficient to renegotiate the contract with Belinda to factor in inflation in light of their contract terms. If within there contract terms there are no room for re-consideration for an increase in payment, then he may appeal for contract termination as of that time. Contract termination or revocation again is based on the contract terms. It involves, official communication to the Belinda requesting to withdraw from the contract indicating the conditions bringing the contract to an end. Revocation of contract is rear and is bound by the terms in an agreement pertaining revocation to the said contract. Belinda may agree or disagree based on the terms in their agreement. Adam’s Options. The central factor to be considered by Adam in a case of contract revocation to Belinda is time and the limited resources. Gibson & Fraser (2010) acknowledge that an offer of a contract may end due to; death, revocation, termination (lapse of time), rejection and a condition bringing an offer to end. Hence Adam, informed by their contractual terms may request based on the fact that there is still reasonable time for relevant adjustments, February and 31st July, he be withdrawn from the contract. Moreover, the unforeseen increment in prices of inputs, may present a strong case for the withdrawal. Better still the availability of significant time coupled with inflation. However, if Adam is limited by the contractual terms from withdrawing, and Belinda is not willing and or able to cater for the unanticipated increase in input prices, then he will have to breach the contract.Economically, the construction of Belinda’s house would not be viable. For the first case, he should immediately secure the contract with Jack, after factoring in future uncertainties. In case of the second case, he should prepare for a good legal defense based on Belinda’s legal redress. Belinda’s Options. In both cases; the first and the second case, Belinda may seek legal redress, as the ‘aggrieved party’ in a court of law. In reference to contract law, Belinda has the legal right to remedy since their contract is binding having met all the essentials of a contract (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).However, in the first case, if Adam requests to withdraw from the contract in due time, (‘February’) in addition to presenting better terms as per the primary contract terms, Belinda my opt for an off the court settlement. This will enable both parties to save on legal cost, prosecution time and even secure their good relation. Even in the second case, Belinda may opt for an off the court settlement, if and only if Adam is in agreement to compensate appropriately.However, Belinda should sue Adam for breach of contract in a court of law (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Gibson & Fraser (2010) observe that under certain circumstances, Belinda would be compensated for damages. But then, the onus to prove that Adam has breached their contract lies with Belinda (Gibson & Fraser, 2010). Belinda as the ‘claimant’ will be indemnified after proving that Adam’s breach of the contract made her suffer an actual loss (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Gibson & Fraser (2010) note that legally, Belinda ought to furnish the courts with enough evidence that; the loss is not too remote, the breach gives rise to entitlement to compensation by Adam and most importantly she must justify the claimed damages (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).In justification of the claimed damages, the understanding by Adam at the time of entering into the contract that the 31st July construction deadline is set specifically due to the expected wedding on the 1st of August, is a precarious legal material fact (Gibson & Fraser 2010).This tests the basis of the almost over a century old verdict by the House of Lords in Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488( “Addis”).According to this case, the courts held that indemnity for breach of contract should not be inclusive of reimbursement for mental distress,frustration,annoyance or injured feelings caused by the breach (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Can Belinda prove otherwise? Addis has always served as a precedent and accordingly an impediment to “indemnification” for losses other than direct monetary losses caused by breach of a contract (Gibson & Fraser, 2010).Belinda may find it difficult to claim damages for having suffered anguish, mental distress, injured feeling, or frustration, with regard to the pending wedding, for the wrongful breach of contract by Adam yet he was aware of the 1st August wedding. The calculations of damages are principally normally done in reference to the initial case of Hadley v Baxendale (1859, 159 ER 145 at 181) (“Hadley”): “The plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages…and such other damages of a pecuniary kind as he may have really sustained as a direct consequence of the breach of the contract…generally in actions upon contracts no damages can be given which cannot be stated specifically…the plaintiff is entitled to recover whatever damages naturally result from the breach of contract, but not damages for the disappointment of mind occasioned by the breach of contract” Further more, the test of damage was also held in the case of Hamlin v Great Northern Railway Co (1856, 158 ER 126 at 1262) (“Hamlin”). In conclusion, based on the legal advice provided with regard to Contract Law, both my clients Belinda and Adam may choose their best fit for our pursuit factoring in material legal facts. References. Gibson, A., & Fraser, D. (5th Ed). (2010). Business Law. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson. Read More