Doctrine of Intention in the Law of Courts

On the one hand it is evident that terms implied at common law can be ‘implied in law’ or ‘implied in fact’. Terms implied as a matter of fact are said to give effect to unexpressed intentions of the

A contract is a legally obligatory promise or set of promises (Bagley, C. 2013). If this promise is broken, either party involved can be legally responsible and take the other party to court. There are four basic elements in the creation of a valid contract. The first consist of an agreement between the parties involved, by an presented offer and acceptance. The second states that the parties’ promises must be supported by something of worth, known as consideration. The third advises both parties must have the ability to enter into a contract. The fourth element states the contract must have a legal purpose (Bagley, C 2013).

Intention to create legal relations can be defined as follows. ‘An agreement will only become a legally binding contract if the parties intend this to be so. This will be strongly presumed in the case of business agreements but presumed otherwise if the agreement is of a friendly, social or domestic nature.’ Source (HNC unit 5 Business law course book) In determining whether the parties intend their agreements to be legally binding the court is guided by two presumptions. Parties to a domestic or social agreement do not intend to be legally bond. Parties

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which in Scotland does not need to take a specific form, as a spoken agreement is still equally as enforceable as a written contract in certain circumstances such as in most social and domestic arrangements. A contract creates a legally binding bond between the parties involved. Contracts are made everyday sometimes without even realising it from buying a coffee to buying a house.

. . has been said to occur ‘where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court,’ or when the court acts ‘without reference to any guiding rules or principles.’ It has also been said to exist when the ruling under consideration ‘appears to have been made on untenable grounds,’ when the ruling is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court,’ when the ruling is ‘clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result,’ when the ruling is ‘violative of fact and logic,’ or when it constitutes an ‘untenable judicial act that defies reason and works an

Held: At least in relation to insurance policies, and almost certainly in relation to contract of indemnity generally, where the evidence is that third parties were in the contemplation of the principal, then those third parties can enforce the contract. That was the

However, there is an exception to use parol evidence rule. In Hull-Dobbs, Inc. v. Mallicoat, the court stated that: “The parol evidence rule does not apply where the parol evidence in no way contradicts or alters the terms of the written contract but the representation or statements are made as an inducement to the contract and form the basic and consideration for

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more persons that is recognised by the courts. In order for an agreement to be legally binding there are certain criteria that have to be met. One of these criteria is capacity. The majority of us have the capacity to form a legally binding agreement, however certain categories of people are limited by law to make contracts the main categories are minors, people judged incapable of contracting due to mental disorders, drunkenness or under the influence of drugs.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that the law recognises and will enforce in necessary. Contracts are essential to commerce and business and are also a fundamental part of our daily lives.Businessess inter into contract individuals, other businesses and governments to by and sell goods, services and intellectual property. Contracts can be written, verbal, express or implied. now many of the contract we enter into are verbal, because of this, many people are often unaware they are entering into legally biding contracts. many of the common law principles upon which contract law is based were developed in the 19th centuty, one of the principles that People intering a contract should have the right to include in it whatever they wish to negotiate the best possible bargain, complete freedom to contract. However, as modern life become more complex, it has become evident that not everyone has full and free options when entering into a contract, practical exemple of this include our dependence on services such as plumpedwater supplies, electricity

Due to the different roots of the two systems, the definition of a contract, as well as its formation, differ between contract law in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Civil Law Jurisdictions (France). The Common Law views contracts as bargains, exchange, a simple agreement has no binding force. It is mainly concerned with forecasting the impact and the binding legal consequences of a party’s promise. The structure or purpose of the contract is not as important as knowing whether the promise of performance that the contract is based upon is enforceable.

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

A contract is an agreement made with an intention of legal rights and obligations which the law will enforce. It contains the agreement, consideration and intention. It also have some other things to consider, like capacity of parties, genuine consent or legality of object.

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

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.

The author argues that the operation of Belize test should be understood as: A term has to be fit in either of the traditional test, but before the implication, it has to be checked by Belize that is in congruence with the reasonable interpretation of the contract as a whole. However, there are some fears that the role of necessity has been trumped by reasonableness in Belize that will consequently lead to the court making the contract for the parties. The preliminary issue is how should we understand “necessity”. Some say it is necessary to make the contract work. Some others propose that it is meant to give effect to the intention of the parties. To uphold the principle of freedom of contract, the court must give effect to what the contractual parties intended therefore the court does not inquire into the subjective intention of the either party. In Liverpool City Council and Philips both stress the importance of necessity. Yet we should be careful in both cases they did not nevertheless totally eliminated the role of reasonableness. The difficult here lies in how the court could