Pros And Cons Of Discharge Of Contract

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

In the Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated vs. George E. Kent case, Jacob & Youngs, the plaintiff, claims that there was a breach of a clause in the contract with the defendant, George E. Kent. The clause stated that any work that is either defective or not in accordance with specifications will be

A contract is an enforceable promise between parties. The parties to any contract must perform according to the relevant and required standards. This includes substantial performance of the services promised, complete or strict performance and personal satisfaction. Failure to perform as required is a breach, which is a compensable injury. Several defenses exist as a result of contract breach. This may include, statute of limitation, statute of frauds requirement for writing, fraud, mistake done during contract performance, lack of good capacity and unconscious ability.

The default position for termination of a contract is for the breach to be ‘material’ (Turnbull v MacLean & Co, 1873). Without contractual expressions, the term ‘material’ represents a situation in which the debtor’s activity undermines the basic purpose of the contract to such an extent as to justify bringing the contract to an end (Scottish Law Commission, 2017). Turning a non-material breach to a material breach can be done through an ultimatum procedure or a summary declaratory procedure (McBryde, The Scots Law of Breach of Contract: A Mixed System in Operation, 2010).

Mills case had an unfortunate outcome. Sawyer should have been paid for all the idea she had which helped raise profits for Mills firm. What Sawyer lacked was a written contract, and so the case fell under the one year rule. Even though she had been paid for thirteen months beforehand, because there was no written contract she lost out on future payment for her idea.

A cancellation can be effected if one party breaches the contract, or a termination can occur when either party lawfully ends the contract for anything other than a breach. In this case, all executor duties are discharged on both sides but in the event of a partial breach, there is still a right to seek a remedy (lectriclaw, 2012). Procedures dealing with all aspects of contracts are a part of everyday transactions and can affect every individual on one level or another.

Issue 1: The trial court deemed that “in electing to forestall the declaration of a breach of contract in an attempt to secure the performance of the defendants thereto, was reasonable and it was proper under the circumstances for plaintiff to set a reasonable time in which defendants were required to complete the contract”. Wendling, the plaintiff set the date of September 21st, 1973, which the court found reasonable since within the letter sent September 11th gave the defendants 10 days to act.

court may find the contract “unconscionable” There is a broad scope for this is not extremely strict and

This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second

Kellerher Funeral Home, Inc. is claiming that a breach of contract has occurred in as much as the work completed by Gonzaga Construction was of sufficiently poor quality as to require rework that cost $4,700. Further, though Kellerher controlled the delays in construction due to his need to continue business operations, he is charging that the lost profit is due to construction delays brought about by Gonazaga's work on the site. The contract language did not stipulate how the interests of the going concern would be balanced against construction project schedule. Indeed, no date of completion was specified in the contract, and a two-week interim between the filing and the commencement of construction is a reasonable period of time for material procurement and arranging for labor. Moreover, the poor workmanship allegation was not communicated during the construction project, leaving Gonzaga with no opportunity to correct any problems with workmanship. For both parties to the contract, it is generally understood that a business contract agreement for services includes some intangibles, such as cooperation, quality of work, reliable communication, experience, and so forth. An essential element in a contract is consideration, which refers to a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promise. In other words, consideration is an exchange that is bargained for in the present in return for

If, however, the release is merely a discharge given by and from the perspective of the releasing party, then it affords no affirmative rights to the released party and it can only operate as a defensive “shield”—that is, a negative defense to a breach of contract claim. Id.

Brewster Heights Packing, the buyer entered a contract with the seller for the purchase of apple packing machinery. The district court entered judg-ment in favor of the seller on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, the court af-firmed. The buyer contended that both it and the seller intended at the time of their con-tract to be bound by their written agreement and to prior oral discussions. The buyer contended that the largest portion of its damages stemmed from the loss of an orally bargained-for system. The court held that a clause in the parties’ contract prohibited the inclusion of any understandings or representations not expressly included in the con-tract. It appeared that the buyer intended to use the parol evidence not to explain or to supplement the contract, but rather to contradict the limitation of warranties contained in the contract. The court concluded that the buyer’s counterclaims of fraud and viola-tion of the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they did not give rise to the independent tort of fraud and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate an ef-fect on other consumers or a real and substantial potential for repetition of unfair con-duct.

In today’s English law, freedom of contract is one the foundation of contract law. The existence of freedom of contract requires three main considerations: the freedom to

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.