The Principle and Issue of Law - Essay Example

? BUSINESS LAW Question one Identify the principle or issue of law The principle or issue of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be the elements of intention and consideration. Explain the rule(s) of the law relevant to the principle/ area/ issue of the law identified in step one with reference to authority The three major requirements for the formation of contract which is legally enforceable are contract, intention and consideration. The element that requires discussion here is whether the agreement required for the formation of a contract can be established. An agreement only becomes legally enforceable by the law if the parties which were intended at the time of the agreement are made legally bound. The judges have to judge the intention objectively. In all circumstances, a court has to ask whether in the circumstances a reasonable person would regard the agreement as it was intended to be binding. In any circumstance that a party in the case wants to prove for sure there was an intention to be legally bound, the party must present the evidence of the intention to the court and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. In the case Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851, the case is about an action which was brought by a widow against the executor of her husband. The day that the husband died, he had stated that he clearly wanted his wife to get one of the houses for the rest of her life. He said that in front of his witnesses. After the husband died, his executors decided to attach a life interest in one of the houses. This was so if the wife agreed to pay one pound per rent and provided that she kept the house in good condition. After some time, the executor refused to totally complete the conveyance as he had promised. It was ruled that the respect for the wishes of the testator was not sufficient for the consideration. In the case Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95, Ermogenous who was a Bishop made a claim to be paid money which he thought was a compensation for his service from the church he was serving, that is Greek Orthodox Community. In the first instance he succeeded in convincing the judges. But when the case was taken to Full Court of the Supreme Court of SA, the judges found that there was no intention of creating legal relations between the parties which were involved. In the case Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969) 121 CLR 353, High Court of Australia, P and D had an arrangement of forming a company. The operations of the company would involve the exportation and importation of timber. It was a rule by the Commonwealth that a subsidy to be paid on any timber for which the import duty was paid but not remitted on export. The court decided that there was no contract at all since the amount to be paid as subsidy by P and D was not specified. There was no implication that any reasonable subsidy was to be paid since there was no any standard by which subsidy was to be judged. Apply the law to the facts of the question in a detailed and logical manner As n agreement becomes enforceable by law when the two parties intend to be legally bound at the time they are making the agreement, there is a need of carrying out an objective assessment of the circumstances under which the agreement between Peter and Sally, and between Burt and Sally was made. The main question in this case is whether, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would regard the agreement between Sally and Peter and the agreement between Sally and Burt as enforceable contract. There is no sufficient evidence that there was a contract between Sally and Peter. This is because, in the first instance, Sally refused to reply the request of Peter to be sold the bicycle at $4000. Peter had requested for an immediate response. Given that Sally refused to reply immediately and she did so after some days, it therefore follows that there was no contract between Peter and Sally. Sally went ahead and delivered the bicycle to Peter without his consent, and he had indicated clearly to be give response immediately through the email. In order for Sally to enforce the agreement between her and Peter, she will be needed to prove that there was a contract between the two. There was no contract between Sally and Burt since she refused to sell the bicycle at $5000 which Burt wanted to pay. He responded very clearly that he would buy the bicycle if only that Sally would agree to sell at his price. Since Sally refused the price, there was no contract between them. In the above circumstances, a reasonable person would regard agreement as it intended to bid the three parties. There was no contract. Draw possible conclusions In conclusion, it is very much unlikely that the contract agreement between the three parties will be legally enforceable. The main reason for this is because Sally, Peter and Burt did not want to enter into a contract at the time they were making the agreement. A contract has not been formed and Sally cannot enforce the agreement between her and Peter and between her and Burt in order to receive payment for the bicycle. Question Two Identify the principle or issue of law The principle or issue of law is that for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an expression of agreement in relation to the sale of the bicycle. Explain the rules of law relevant to the principle/ area/ issue of law identified in step one with reference to authority. The three main elements which are required for the formation of legally enforceable contract are intention, agreement, and consideration. The element that requires consideration in this case concerning Peter and Sally is the existence of an intention by the two p[arties to enter into a legally binding agreement. Any agreement is only legally enforceable if the parties involved in the case intend at the time they are making the contract to be legally bound. The intention of the two parties is objectively judged. In normal circumstances, the court has to ask whether a logical person would regard the agreement as intended to be binding. The test is however very objective, where the courts mainly rely on presumptions presented to assist them in making the judgment concerning the case. Where arrangements are made between a buyer and a seller, the court usually presumes that the agreements they made were to be legally bound. In the case LG Thorne & co v Thomas Borthwick & Sons, the seller had given the buyer a sample of oil. The buyer took the initiative of testing the oil and he found out that it met the qualities that he wanted. He made more orders of the same oil from the seller. The seller gave the oil to the buyer but it later turned out that the oil that the buyer was giving was different from the initial sample that he had given the buyer. In this case, the seller won the case since the contract had all the details and it indicated clearly that the implied terms which were not in the contract were not legally enforceable. The judge ruled that it is through writing that the terms of the contract are proven. In the case Handbury v Nolan 1977, when the two parties were making the bid, the auctioneer informed the buyer that the cow he was selling was pregnant. After buying the cow, the buyer afterwards realized that the cow was not pregnant at all. In this case, the auctioneer had not written his declaration in a document. The buyer won the case even though the agreement or the terms of sale were made orally. This is because an oral agreement is still binding. In the case Causer v Brown (1952) VLR 1, a customer had left a dress to be cleaned and he was given a docket. The assist of the dry cleaning company agreed to take maximum care of the dress by the customer a fact that he readily agreed. When the customer came for the dress, the dress had a stain. The customer sued the assistant for negligence and breach of contract. But the face of the ticket had a clause that the company was not responsible for any damage or loss to the clothes left n the company. It was ruled that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that it was the practice of the cleaning company to incorporate terms in the way it did for the customers who needed cleaning services. When any agreement is reached in either a business or commercial context, the court automatically presumes that the parties involved in the agreement had the intention of the agreement to legally a bid them. In case one party wants to show that this is not the case, the party is required to provide sufficient evidence. Apply the law to the facts of the question in a detailed and logical manner As an agreement becomes legally enforceable when the parties involved in the case make such an agreement, an objective assessment has to be made. In this case, the objective assessment concerning Peter and Sally needs to be undertaken in order to make a judgment. The question in this case is whether, in any circumstance a logical person would give a regard to the sale agreement as its intention were bidding. The parties in this case are no friends, they are business partners. There are sufficient facts that a contract was made between Peter and Sally. It is also evident that that the agreement was made in commercial or business context. Give the facts the two parties are business partners, the court will assume in these circumstance, Peter and Sally intended to be legally bound by the agreement that they made. In order to enforce the sale agreement, Peter has to prove to the court additional facts to the assumption. One fact about the agreement is that it has a reasonable time frame that is 30 days. In the above circumstances, a logical person would regard the agreement between Peter and Sally as legally bidding. Draw possible conclusions In conclusion, it is possible that the sale agreement was legally enforceable because Peter and Sally intended to be legally bound by the time they were making the agreement. There was formation of a contract between the two parties and Sally can enforce the agreement between her and Peter. Part B Judges can look outside an act of Parliament for assistance in interpreting legislation. This can be done if the judge cannot find an established rule of law to apply. The judges must follow the previous decisions of superior courts. Intrinsic evidence refers to evidence which appears within a written document. A good example of an intrinsic evidence is a will as in the case of Stoner v Custer, 251 N.E 2d 668. It is external evidence which is not contained at all in the body which consist the agreement. It can be a contract or a will. Extrinsic evidence refers to evidence which is not properly before any court of law. Circumstances which make extrinsic evidence to arise include latent ambiguity, Scrivener’s error, and patent ambiguity. References Theophilus Parsons. The law of contracts. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1904 John William S., William Henry. The Law of Contracts: A Course of Lecturers. Charleston: BiblioBazzar, 2010 Robert Denicola. The Law of Contracts: Pearls of Wisdom. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2004 William Herbert Page. The Law of Contracts. California: W.H Anderson Co. 1921 John Melville Gould. The Law of Contracts. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1906 John William Smith, Vincent Thomas Thompson. The Law of Contracts: Making of Modern Law. New York: T. & J. W. Johnson, 1878. Robert L. Harmon. Patents and the Federal Circuit. Westminster: Bna Books, 2009 Robert C. Kahrl. Patent Claim Construction. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2001. Christopher B. Mueller. Evidence: Practice Under The Rules. New York: Aspen Publishers, 1999 Austin Abbott. Trial Evidence: The Rules of evidence applicable on the trial of civil actions. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co, 1918 Read More