How to Overcome Cyber Terrorism and Cyber Crime

Duress is a logical extension of principles of contract, particularly relating to consent and the intention to create a legal relationship. This is because a person cannot technically be said to be giving his actual consent to a transaction if he is forced to enter it; as such, the person cannot be said to have consented to the transaction. Furthermore, a person cannot be said to intend to create legal relations if he enters into a contract forcefully. As such, the courts have held felt that duress has a similar effect to fraud; as “whether it springs from a fear or from a belief, the party has been subjected to an improper motive for action.”

Contract theory - studies how economic actors can and do construct contractual arrangements, generally in the presence of asymmetric information

An agreement means a consensus on at least those essential terms needed for a workable transaction. The process of reaching an agreement is generally analysed as involving an offer and acceptance. Where the offer is a clear indication of the terms upon which a person is prepared to be bound, and an acceptance is assenting to, agreeing, or

In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract.  As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).

t. P1) An agreement cannot bind unless both parties to the agreement know what they are doing and freely choose to do it.

submission resulting from the accused’s use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear

…in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

A mistake is defined in contract law as a belief that is not in accord with the facts. The law recognizes certain mistakes and provides a solution intended to make the parties whole again (Melvin, 2011). However, a mutual mistake may be the basis for canceling a contract (also called avoiding the contract) when both parties hold an erroneous belief. The mistake in this case focusses on assumption made by Chou. After the oral agreement was reached, Chou offered to draft a written version of the contract. During this process, Chou received an e-mail from the BTT manager who simply restated the key terms of the agreement. After receiving this e-mail, Chou mistakenly assumed the BTT manager wanted to draft the contract. This erroneous belief by Chou caused the 90-day deadline to pass without a written contract. This 90-day deadline was a binding stipulation of the original negotiating contract.

Anytime the offender uses threats, coercion, bodily injury, or kidnapping to force someone to have sex, it is classified as sexual abuse and is a crime. The current laws also forbid sexual activity

1. Competent parties. A court will not uphold a contract entered into by parties the law does not believe have the capacity to take on such a legal responsibility, such as minors or people who are mentally incapacitated.

Every contract is based on the concept of agreement. A contract is defined as a legal agreement consisting of exchange of promises which is recognized by law as giving rise to enforceable rights and obligations. The test of agreement is used to ensure whether or not there is a contract between the parties. Whereas the objective test ensures certainty, the same cannot be said about the subjective test of agreement. The objective test of agreement is when the court decides whether there is contract based on the outward appearance of what constitutes the contract. However the subjective test of agreement involves trying to establish whether there was a “meeting of minds” when the contract was made. That is, to try to figure out the mental state of mind of the parties involved during the time the contract was made.

A statute may declare expressly that a particular contract is void, eg s 45 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 which provides that clauses purporting to exclude, restrict, or modify the liability of a corporation imposed by Division 2 Part V of the Act (that is the implication of terms such as an implied condition of merchantability and of fitness for purpose) are void. The effect is a question of statutory interpretation.

As it is the agreement of the parties which binds them, so by their further agreement or consnt the contract may be terminated.

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

If one party pressures the contractual consent of another by duress the contract is voidable by that other party (See Also s 52A TPA and s 39 FTA).