Contractual Law - Assignment Example

Contractual Law Name Institution Contractual Law The contract of law seeks to define the relationship between all the parties involved in a contract (Tufal, 1995). It also seeks to establish the elements which make a contract valid. This assignment is divided into two parts. The first part seeks to discuss and evaluate the transactions between Anita and Peng. This part will seek to evaluate the process followed in this transaction and whether the correct procedure in terms of the contract of law was followed. The second part of this assignment seeks to expound on the transaction between Anita and David. I will relate all these two cases to the law of contract seeking to justify if all the transactional details were followed t o the latter or if there were some lapses in the transactions. These will expose the loop holes that Anita can use to seek redress. Issue Case 1: Anita vs. Peng Anita was denied the right to know the whole truth concerning the television set she bought. She requested for information and she had the full right to be given by the offeror. This can be seen by the statement Anita made, “Have you ever had any problems with the picture?” The response to Anita’s question was that the television had worked well, with Peng going ahead to showing Anita how it worked. This was however contradicted by the electrician who said that the television most likely had a major fault before Anita bought it. This shows that Anita was denied the right to full information concerning the Television set. The main issue here is whether Anita was denied the right to acquire full information concerning the television set that she bought from Peng. Case 2: Anita vs. David The transaction between Anita and David was one characterized by threats and coercion. It wasn’t the transaction she had wished for but she was put in a situation where she had to buy it. For a genuine contract to be valid, no one party should be pushed into making a decision which she would have gone contrary if provided with a neutral and justified environment. The main issue here is whether Anita was coerced into buying a television set against her wish thus making this contract voidable? The Law A contract can simply be defined as a promise or a set of promises that the law will enforce (Tufal, 1995). A contract has a few elements that I will highlight in view of this case in order to clearly understand it. The contract between Anita and Peng can be classified as a simple contract since most of the communications and agreements were done orally. The main elements of a contract are; the offer, Acceptance, Intention to create legal intentions, consideration, privy to contract, request for information, capacity to engage in contract and the Legality of consent. Offer A contract can only come into existence if only a genuine offer has been made and unconditionally accepted (Tufal, 1995). The offer can be in writing, oral communication or provided the mode of offer is line with statutory requirements. An offer can be said to be when a person is willing to do or abstain from doing anything with a view of obtaining the consent of the other to such an act or abstinence. Acceptance Acceptance is made by the person to whom the goods or services are being rendered to. Acceptance can only be done after a successful offer is mutually agreed on. An acceptance may be expressed or implied and must be absolute or unqualified (Tufal, 1995). This means an acceptance should only be made with an intention to fulfill the terms of the offer. It should be noted that an acceptance should accepted within the fixed time and it should be made before the offer lapses or is revoked. Intention to create legal intentions All the parties involved must create the intention to have legal relations. A court will not endorse a contract entailing anybody to engage in an unlawful action. Arrangements of a social nature are presumed not to be legally binding, while commercial arrangements are presumed to binding contracts. Consideration When a consideration exists in the form of a promise, this means that each party in the contract must receive something of value (Tufal, 1995). The law does not recognize any agreement where one party will be receiving anything in exchange. This can simply be defined as the price paid for the others promise. Any agreement made without consideration is void, thus. In the case of Curie vs. Musa 1975 that gave birth to an acceptable description to considerations, consideration was explained as some right, interest, profit or benefit from one party for which forbearance, responsibility or loss is given to or undertaken by the other. Another land mark case is that of Carlil vs. Carlil Smoke Co. In this case, Ms. Carlil acted upon an advertisement in the papers, that by buying and using carbolic smoke ball to prevent influenza, she would contract it anymore. The court ruled in her favor that she was still entitled to compensation as her consideration to contract was as a result of her inconvenience in swallowing the drugs while the company’s main goal was to increase the sale of the smoke balls. Privy to Contract A stranger to a contract cannot sue, it a cardinal rule that only a party tot a contract can sue (Tufal, 1995). For either of the parties to create a legal contract, privity to the contract is required. However, there are a few exceptions to the principle of privity. A beneficiary is allowed to file a suit to enforce his/ her benefits. Request for information It is the right of either party to request for information. Request for information should not be taken as a counter offer. If you ask the offeror for information or clarification about the offer; that does not put out the offer; one is still free to accept it. This is of essence especially due to the fact that one has to properly understand what he/she is buying. Capacity to Engage in a Contract As mentioned above in the intention to create legal agreements, all of those engaged in a contract should be in a position to do so. The general rule is that any person can enter into an agreement; however, there are rules that govern the capacity of such persons to engage in contracts for instance a minor or an Infant, a person of unsound mind, aliens or non-citizens and many others. All the parties entering into a contract should have the capacity in requirement of the law. All the parties should be capable of making rational judgments with an aim representing their interests. There are two things of necessity, these are; one should have the capacity to understand the contract and one should have the ability to make rational judgments. In the case of Imperial Loan Co. Ltd vs. stone, the defendant had signed a promissory note and sued on it claiming he was of unsound mind and that the other party was aware of his mental condition. Legality of consent A contract should be free of will with no coercion to either of the parties. In case there was coercion, the contract becomes violable on the part of the person whose side coercion occurred. Two or more people in a contract are said to be in consent if they agree on one thing without being pushed or coerced. Facts In Light of Law It is correct to start by establishing that all participants in both the two transaction are of age thereby making them acceptable in terms of law and that of assuring that they had the intention of entering into legal intentions. It is proper for us to start with the advertisement that Anita posted in the papers. She wanted a color television that was in good condition. Case 1: Anita vs. Peng The issue between Anita and Peng was that Anita was denied information which could have been very vital for her. In essence this amounts to fraud. This can be realized from the electrician. The transaction between Anita and David followed the correct channel in terms of the offer and acceptance. No one was pushed into making a decision. The initial television was for a colored one though it seems Anita got a good deal when she found one with a video unit. The only issue here is that the full information concerning the television set was not revealed. This amounts to fraud making this contract voidable. Anita can seek redress from the courts using this part of the transactional details which will be supported by the electricians’ findings. Though Anita asked a specific question about the picture, she deserved to know more. The selling point for Peng was that the picture was good hence there could be no other problem with the television set. In the case Roscarla vs. Thomas, Roscarla had bought a horse from Thomas, Thomas has praised the horse as being fast, healthy only Roscarla to realize that the horse was vicious, the judges ruled in favor of the contract being voidable. Case 2: Anita vs. David The second case involving Anita and David is more of a direct case. This is a pure case involving coercion. It plainly evident that Anita was coerced into buying the television set from David through threats. A threat was made to her life, thus she never got the chance to engage into a meaningful contract with David. This is because she was forced into a decision. This gives Anita the chance to successfully sue David for threats. As a requirement for coercion, threats are punishable by law; hence this would be a direct reason for making this contract to be voidable. No offer or acceptance was made in line with the requirements of the contract of law. There was neither time nor chance given for Anita to make a counter offer. This definitely means she was under duress when making this decision of accepting the offer. Another aspect of this case is that David never had the intention of creating a legal contract with Anita. He had an urgent urge to sell the television set. Anita never had the time to ask or enquire about the particulars of the television Set. This clearly shows that David never had the intention of creating any legal transactions with Anita due to him hiding some information from her. In the case of Parker v Clarke (1960), the court held that the exchange of letters signified that the two couples were serious and the agreement was intended to be legally binding. This was because the Parkers had sold their own home, and that Mr. Clarke changed his will. As a result, the Parkers were unrestricted to damages. In conclusion, it is evident from the above arguments that Anita can successfully sue for the two cases. In all the two cases there were breaches in contract. If properly argued in a court of law, she will be able to void the entire contract and thus recovering her money. The law of contract seeks to protect both the offer and the offeror. In this case, Anita was denied her right s of having successful contract which could have ended up with her having a colored television set in a good condition. Reference Tufal, A. (1995). Introduction to Contract Law. New York: Van Nostrad Reinhold Read More