Delivery in day(s): 5
Diploma in Business
Unit Number and Title
Unit 5 Contract Law
When an agreement is enforceable by law and legislation then it becomes a contract. Every type of contracts is agreement whereas every agreement is not termed as contracts. There exist various valid fundamentals which are necessary in an agreement to turn it into a contract. The law and legislation can be described as a gathering of guidelines which are normally established with the help of government as well as authorities of state. They are key important figures in the making of laws and legislations and at the same time they are the one who are responsible for enforcing the law which is created inside the process of jurisdiction by using various features as guidelines. According to the business framework, there exists different types of legislations and laws, but yet the quite majorly utilized laws within the business are the law of contracts. A contract is actually means a promise by the official commitment within the legislation and laws which is enforceable. A contract can be described as a method which is utilized by people for the safeguard of their materials.
Oral contracts are used in business firms but yet most of the time written contracts is preferable during the time of involving in an agreement. Contract law is necessarily executed as the legal documents give firms and persons assurance of having legal documents which actually clearly expresses the promise executed by both the parties. Today, inattentiveness is enhancing rapidly in the world of business, so it has become a process of compensating persons for the financial damage. The main aim of this paper is for understanding the
. The paper will highlight the main characteristics of contracts as well as carelessness of contracts in terms of business. The paper will also highlights the important fundamentals which are necessary for forming a legalized contract with the help of fundamentals which are included into the contract at the time of various distinct business conditions. The paper also describes the liability of a party at the time of carelessness of in the operations of business.
When agreements are enforceable by the laws and legislation then it becomes a contract. It is expressed that every contracts are an agreements whereas every agreements are not a contract. There are different kinds of fundamentals of law ful contracts that are very essential as well as crucial to be enforced by the laws and rules. The different fundamentals are important for a lawful contract and at the same time if any of the fundamentals of law ful contract is omitted then the agreement will not be concerned as a contract(Cartwright, 2007). Acceptance and offer are the first most stage in contract for the beginning of it. In this stage one party forms an offer during acceptance turns into promise.
The second most reason of promise turns into a consideration and without consideration a contract is null because consideration can be illegal whereas the court may consider it as unlawful and fraud. A contract contains a statement of will as well as it states the purpose to produce a lawful affect, it is essential to create a lawful contract. Different parties who are involved in the contract must have the ability and potentiality to make a lawful contract(Extempore.ie, 2016). The ability and potentiality expresses that both the parties must be mentally sound and at the same time must be an adult. Thus, in case of Peter Abraham, he is capable to make a lawful contract because he is an adult and also mentally sounds.
Different lawful contracts are made through the help of various conditions and terms, and all these conditions and terms give the contract in a fulfilled way. Before creating any of the contracts, various types of statements should be formed by one party in order to influence the other party in order to entering within the contract(Jewell, 2002). The parties that are included within the contract are guaranteed only through its terms and conditions.
For the construction and implementation of an agreement in business scenario, it is essential that the procedure of the agreement has been developed under the involvement of two or more different parties(Burrows, 2011). In business law, one party has to make a valid offer and other individual has to accept the offer with a valid and legal consideration. In the scenario of Case 1, it can be recognized that the specific case comes under the reflection of invitation to treat relating to the offer that is placed under the given contract. In business strategy , any form of promotional activity for any product or service is usually considered as a treat that persuades the customers to buy the product or service. It is an activity to attract customers to buy the product or services of the advertisement maker. Thus, from the understanding of treat and from the situation in the scenario of case 1, it is measured that Carol has only made an approach for the approval of the offer. The sales person or the vendor is identified as an offeror and on the other side Carol is considered as an offeree. From this, it is confirmed that advertisement can only be considered as published proposal(Casebrief.me, 2016). There is also no written document where it can be considered as a valid agreement which is very much essential for a valid contract. The mutualindulgent and approval of the products or services were also missing between the parties which are very much required for the formation of a contract. Therefore, the acceptance of the invitation cannot be considered as an approval of an agreement and is notenforceable under the business law. For this case situation, the case of Partridge versus Crittenden (1968) can be examined for this discussion.
It can be identified from the scenario of case 2 that Preston, who is the father of Devi, is identified as a promisor. From the understanding of the case of Roscorla vs. Thomas (1842) re McArdle (1951), this case situation can be understood. Preston is identified as a promisor as he promises George, the owner of the IT Company, in which Preston son Devi has given interview for a job to pay consideration if he hires his son in his company(Austen-Baker, 2011). But George cannot be considered as the promisee as he has not made any communication with Preston for hiring his son. Another thing to note that the promise made by the Preston is a promise made in the past and does not exist according to the business law. It is also important to understand that the George also cannot legally impose Preston to pay the consideration, as the promise made by him is expired. The IT Company has already hired Devi before any communication about the promise is made between Preston and George.The situation of the case defines the negotiating situation and Preston is identified as the initiator of the consideration and the promise that he made is identified as an executed consideration. Another thing to understand from the following case scenario is that for a lawful and legal consideration, it is essential for consideration to be a disadvantage to the promisee and advantage to the promisor(Netk.net.au, 2016). All these requirements are missing in the given case scenario, and thus George cannot enforce Preston to pay the promised amount.
From the description provided and the understanding in the scenario of the case 3, it can easily be understood that the following comes and falls under the segment of excrusion law of business law. The foremost objective of this clause is to restrict and to develop an obstacle for the obligation of a penetrating partner. For the following case examination, the case of Olley vs. Marlborough Court Hotel, 1949 can be taken for consideration as the described case has same parallel issues like the situation described in this case. It can be identified from the case 3 that the couple and the owner of the restaurant are the two main involving parties which needs to be tangled for the following situation. The major role of the exclusion clause in business law is to defend the obligation of a penetrating partner. The major thing to notice in this case is the nonappearance of any message between the porter regarding the circumstance of the restaurant in relation to the liability of any materials. Therefore, from the understanding of exclusion clause of business contract law, statement and communication is very much required for the initiation of a contract. It is done for the clear consideration of the additional parties(Smith, 2011). The gatekeeper of the restaurant has only handled the paper regarding the obligation of the subjects in the restaurant without getting involved into any communication. The gatekeeper has also not informed the couple to go through the liability issues of the restaurant. Another thing is that the communication neither was nor developed to the pair who has been chosen as party of the current case. From the examination of the current case, the owner of the restaurant cannot be legally become totally dependent on the exclusion clause for the preservation of his side. There was no communication made by the gatekeeper with the couple regarding the liability issue of the restaurant. If any communication was made between the porter and the owner of the restaurant with the couple regarding the liability issues of the restaurant, then the owner can take charge for the materials.
The details prescribed in the case 4, clearly indicates the submission of the implied positions that are available under the business contract law. Aaron and Sephra are considered as the involved parties in the current case. The legalization of implied terms has been developed for the preparation of avoidance rule in the formulation of the contract. The contract made between Aaron and Sephra was legal as the communication was made with clear communication and mutual consent and agreement but the contract is terminated before its period as one of the party died among the contracting parties. Aaron, the defender in this case, has made some noteworthy changes in the borrowed possessions and has also made investment into that(Cooke, 2009). As the agreement was terminated before its maturity date, he can demand for compensation that is based on the fundamentals of implied terms.For the following case situation, the best illustration can be provide from the case of Liverpool City Council vs. Irwin (1977) in which the judgment was done in the courtesy of defending party.
After the examination of the description provided in the current scenario, it can be identified that the policy holder has not received any awaiting theft privilege. From the specification of the following statement, it can be understood that the insurer who has done the policy has no authority to cancel the current policy. It can also be analyzed from the situation described in the case scenario that the policy holder has not developed any incorrect form of information to the insurer who has no authority to cancel the current policy. It is also important to note that the policy holder has not produced any wrong information as any preceding and past policy cannot be taken into account for the commencement of any current policy(E-lawresources.co.uk, 2016). Here, it is important to describe that it is essential to provide dome key fundamental issues in relation to a voidable contract. It is so because it gives assistance in these situations. It is also important to convey here that in presence of the conditions in which the parties are involved, should have focus on the transaction as the contract made is void.
In relevance to the description provided in the scenario of case 6, it can be identified that the specific situation has produced a very complicated situation which the enforceable suitability of the policy holder is involved. The policy holder is accompanying the policy of a car protection policy. Therefor from the examination of the case, it can be established that the involved policy holder have produced wrong facts in the declaration of the document of the insurer or the agent of the insurance company. The wrong information that is produced by the engaged policy holder clarifies that there are claims made by the policy holder within the mentioned time frame of the document of the insurer. So, after analyzing the lawful consideration of this case, it can be described that the involved insurance holder has provided incorrect information. But it can be taken as an error due to which the insurer has gained a position where hecan terminate the policy as void or inacceptable due to the presence of legal right in its position.Furthermore, it is also important to mention that the lawful agreement which is present between the two involved parties does not depend on an error which later can be presented as an evidence of defense(Legislation.gov.uk, 2016). In addition to this, it is also significant to understand that there is a possibility of having a mistake during the period of initiating the contract. Therefore, such mistakes can be taken as a contrasting issue that creates obstacles in meeting the mind to develop a mutual agreement on a same thing and thus decision making the contract as void.
Tort is something that is developed in a situation where a person ruptures the obligation of law and also affects the individual rights of other individual. Tort has been described as a legal responsibility of person in the context of English contract law. The liability of an individual develops under the fundamentals of tort, when one party braches any condition described in the contract. After the breach, the party falls under the liability of the contract that is based on the agreement of injured party. Under the awful consideration of contractual party, defendant is punishable under the legal terms and the individual who have suffered can get the reimbursement(Schmerler, 2008). Each liability that is mentioned in the fundamentals of tortis normally depends on the liability for failure to approach the duty imposed by the law.
Example- suppose, Mr X made a contract to buy a refrigerator from Mr Y at $ 1500. If MrY fails to deliver the automobile within the given time frame, then he or she becomes a contractual liable person automatically. Similarly, if Mr X fails to pay the full consideration within the given time frame, then he or she becomes contractual liable to Mr Y. Mr X also has the accountability to control the carrier vehicle as if his staffs cannot perform the task, he will incur tort liability.
Negligence, under the business contract law is stated as a situation where a responsible person does not perform the work that he or she must have to do. It happens when a person fails to operate and perform his or her duties under some reasonable circumstances(Lindemann, Kadue and Lindemann, 2012). As from the principles of tort, if any person is involved in doing any wrong in his or her duties, it will be described as negligence. There are namely four factors that need to be considered in the negligence of tort.
Vicarious or sympathetic liability is actually the accountability of one individual which is termed as a principle, for the tortious conduct of other as well as the person performing on principle is termed as agent. It is condition of affairs on which someone is lead under the liability for the missing of the action achieved by other individual. Sympathetic liability mainly is the duty of the third person for the responsible person. As per example, is a commodity’s supplier of the firm measures off during driving and hits somebody, and then in that case both the proprietor and its driver are responsible to fulfill the damages and injuries of the victim who got injured(McLean, Mason and McLean, 2004). It occurs for the liability of the torts of other as well as exists majorly because of the association of the parties.
As per the English Contract Law, the lawful implications of sympathetic liability are allowable for analyzing the specified case. This specific reflects the major ignorance at the time of duty so the guiltless faced injury can claim lawful compensation form the firm for which the chauffeur employed for. The guiltless person has the lawful capability as well as power in order to claim compensation from the firm because the injury happens at the time of duty played for the firm(Cornford, 2008). Thus, the guiltless or injured person of sympathetic liability is able for claiming lawful compensation from the company for the damages as per the act of Civil Liability Act, 1978.
As per the English Contract Law, the lawful implications of sympathetic liability in the condition of offence of ignorance it is essential for concerning that sympathetic liability is not permitted to execute in a specific firm if any workplace safeguard and health issues have been sympathetic to another firm(Cornford, 2008). But through considering the case deeply it is observed that the guiltless person faced an injury within the supermarket but yet he is not permitted to hold supermarket proprietor directly for the damages faced by the injured person as the owner of the supermarket has already allotted the employer safeguard and health to another firm.
Andrews, N. (2011). Contract law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austen-Baker, R. (2011). Implied terms in English contract law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Austlii.edu.au. (2016). Leslie v Graham  FCA 32 (4 February 2002). [online] Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/32.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Leslie%20and%20Graham%20) [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Barker, K. (2012). The law of torts in Australia. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Burrows, A. (2011). A casebook on contract. Oxford: Hart Pub.
Cartwright, J. (2007). Contract law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Casebrief.me. (2016). Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd | Case Brief Summary. [online] Available at: http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/thornton-v-shoe-lane-parking-ltd/ [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Cornford, T. (2008). Towards a public law of tort.Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
E-lawresources.co.uk. (2016). Donoghue v Stevenson. [online] Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-v-Stevenson.php [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
E-lawresources.co.uk. (2016). Taylor v Glasgow Corporation. [online] Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Taylor-v-Glasgow-Corporation.php [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Extempore.ie. (2016). Lynch v. Binnacle: Vicarious Liability Confirmed | Ex Tempore. [online] Available at: http://www.extempore.ie/2011/03/16/lynch-v-binnacle-vicarious-liability-confirmed/ [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Giliker, P. (2010). Vicarious liability in tort. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jewell, M. (2002). An introduction to English contract law. Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verl.-Ges.
Legislation.gov.uk. (2016). Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/47/contents [Accessed 6 Jun. 2016].
Lindemann, B., Kadue, D. and Lindemann, B. (2012). Workplace harassment law. Arlington, VA: BNA Books.