Angus Crouch – a1686531
The contract Gabe entered with Crane Entertainment on 5th October, is a legitimate contract as it was a legal document prepared and agreed upon prior to the commencing of work for the new arcade game. Although ‘tipsy’ when Crane representatives arrived, it can be presumed they did not know or realise Gabe had been drinking.
In much the same situation, Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 addresses that one cannot escape the contract’s obligation under ‘mere’ drunkenness unless they were –to the knowledge of the other party- ‘seriously affected by drink’. Having agreed to the contract over the telephone prior to the drinks, Gabe was already aware of many major points of the contract. Already…show more content… Crane’s proposed contract for Gabe featured many specific terms such as, “Spectre Games (Gabe’s company) agrees to use the font known as ‘Zippity’ for the front cover of the video game it produces for Crane Entertainment.” The use of ‘Zippity’ is only mentioned once in the contract, and although the terms may be specific, they lack a sense of clarity which begs the question, was Gabe understanding of the entirety of the contract? The contract has the possibility of being rendered invalid if other sections of the document are as inconsistent and unclear as the aforementioned term.
Ruling that the contract is legitimate seems a likely outcome seeming as the contract kept to the four key principles of creating a contract. It must be remembered that not all contracts are well written or thought out however it is important for the contract to have clarity.
In order to complete the game by 22nd February, Gabe asked, on 4th January over the phone, Crane Entertainment’s word to reimburse him for an additional $60,000 which he would later take out as a loan to purchase new software. With the refusal to accept this future payment as legitimate, Crane risk being sued by Gabe.
Although Gabe feels the contract is bound and the verbal agreement is legitimate, it could be argued, that as the contract had been signed off prior to the promise. Crane’s original contract is to be upheld