An Implied Contract: The Case of Cynthia vs. Blessing

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

According to an online article titled, “What Is an Implied Contract” it defines the term as, “creating an obligation between the parties based on the facts of the situation. If the parties’ conduct or the circumstances suggests they had an agreement or understanding that created an obligation, then the law will find that they have an implied in-fact contract.” (Crowe, 2015). Based on this definition and the scenario that took place in the video, I would say that there was not an implied employment contract in this situation. From the discussion between Ms. Gaddis’ and Mr. Price, the viewer can gather that they both do not agree on what Mr. Price’s job role should be. For example, Ms. Gaddis’ feels as though Mr. Price should create the advertisement using the language that she felt was best for the agencies success; however, Mr. Price felt as though he

Implied terms are not general stated in a contract. Implied terms are introduced into the contract by statute, custom and common law.

The plaintiff, during the signing of the contract, acted in a fraudulent manner. He took advantage of the defendant’s excitement to offer the product at exorbitant amounts. He did not clearly explain to them what the terms they had agreed to implied. Courts have not shied away from invalidating contracts when it becomes apparent that one party benefitted unfairly at the end of the stipulated term. This position was held in the case of Derby v. Derby. In this case, the court argued that Mrs. Derby had used fraudulent means to ensure that Mr. Derby signed the legal documents that conveyed the property to her. Mrs. Derby had failed to explain to Mr. Derby what the documents represented, and their effect. Also, Mr. Derby had acted on misinformed belief that Mrs. Derby would return home if he (Mr. Derby signed the documents. The court ruled for Mr. Derby. This is a similar situation that the defendants, in this case, find them in. The plaintiff, while presenting the contract to them to sign, failed to explain to them the effect (Roos, 2012). Because the effect brought about gross disparity, the contract qualifies to be termed as being

“An implied contract is a promise made between two or more parties. Upon accepting a job at the end of an interview, the hiring party is likely to shake the new hire's hand. This is an implied contract.” (Doverspike, 2012)

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed into law and applied to the United States of America. Since its establishment, there have been numerous situations where the government has created laws that go against the Constitution. Importantly, the First Amendment in the Constitution protects freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. The First Amendment restricts the federal government on imposing any system of prior restraint. Prior restraint allows the government to censor material before its distribution or publication. When prior restraint is allowed, it in turn, limits 1st Amendment rights because it gives the government a right to suppress certain material. It is widely believed that the doctrine of prior restraint should only be used in rare events such as when it’s in regards to national security. But, how do we define national security? For years after the signing of the Constitution, the government has found loopholes to impose prior restraints on publications from the press because of national security.

There are two types of theories that we have learned in our first class that apply to the material in the case Queen v. Bradley they are Utilitarianism/Teleological Ethics theory and the Deontological ethics theory. The Teleological ethics theory is when you look at the consequences or the end game of the decision-making process. So basically, you are saying that the ends justify the means. Deontological ethics theory argues that we have certain duties to perform regardless of the consequences.

Contracts can be defined through promises between parties that are enforceable through law. We know that both parties agreed verbally, an oral agreement was made to hold the car for one day with a hundred-dollar deposit and Stan agreed to the terms that the deposit was refundable. Contracts can be in in two form which are written or oral. Based on the elements of contracts, many fundamentals factors are considered mandatory to form a contract that is binding on parties and are primarily outlined through the following:

would give 100 £. The company then deposited 1,000 £ in a bank to show

Implied terms of employment are terms, which are not identified between an employee and employer, these are broad terms, of which there are 4 types. These are Terms implied in fact, terms implied by custom or practice, terms implied by law, and terms implied by statue. Terms implied in fact usually used to make logic of what was written down in an employment contract

The contract in English law enhances principle of freedom of contract. Indeed, the terms of the contract is freely determined and agreed by the parties. However, there are various circumstances in which additional terms may be implied into the agreement. The aim of implied terms is often to provide a supplement to a contractual agreement in the interest of making bargain more effective, to achieve fairness between the parties and to alleviate hardship.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

Implied terms are terms that are assumed and expected to be carried out. They do not have to be communicated since it would be reasonable to assume that both parties are aware of them. To put this into context let’s take the example of the man at the restaurant. He orders his meal, eats his meal and then walks out the restaurant instead of paying at the end. He claims he was never asked to pay, so he doesn’t need to. He is in the wrong since it is an implied term that after a meal the customer must pay the restaurant for their order. If he walks out without paying he is breaching the contract and breaking the law. The restaurant are entitled to sue for damages and use the law against the customer.

Contractual agreement has always been viewed in terms of offer and acceptance. The universal principle to contract law has always been parties may get into an agreement in whichever way they deem fit and they are subject to certain terms as they choose. As far as legal requirements vital to their formation are binding contracts may be formed. Moreover a binding agreement may be manifested in terms of writing or in verbal form.