Contract Law Case Study

credible, and the motives of the speaker may be questioned. The assumption is that if

In the McTavish case the agent breached a clear term of the contract and is liable to pay back the money to the principal. Stork has also breached his fiduciary duty [loyalty, good faith] to McTavish regarding this

10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.

, but Marshall said that since it was a contract it could stay and was legal

A’s promise to B can only be enforced by B if B has given consideration for that promise;

2. The statement is about a fact relevant to a material issue in the case, other than credibility. Fed. Rules Evid. 613(b). As has been said, if the prior inconsistent statement is not relevant to a material issue in the case, other than credibility, extrinsic proof of it is not permitted. In that case, the courts say that

this case could be an tricky in the court, because in the contract they only

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions

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.

It has been said that if a party makes a mistake as to the identity of the person he is contracting with then there is no contract, or if there is a contract then it is void such that no property can transfer under it. The legal principle prior to Phillips v Brooks is that depending on the facts, if the court’s decision is that the contract is void for mistake then the mistaken party still has the right to the title of the goods as it was seen in Cundy v Lindsay, or the mistaken party will have no legal obligation to pay for the goods as it was seen in Boulton v Jones. However, if the contract is just voidable then the good title goes to

If the statement turns out to be a false one, a claim for misrepresentation may be brought against the representor by the representee. The courts govern this area of the law through the Misrepresentation Act 1972 South Australia and the relevant common law that has developed since the Act’s inception. (Legislation,1991) If the courts find the existence of an actionable misrepresentation, which could be fraudulent, negligent or innocent, there are a number of remedies available, including financial compensation and

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.