Tabl1710 Major Assignment

There is consideration present here since according to the ‘Doctrine of Consideration, ' promises will legally enforceable if you ‘ask for something in return for ' something else. Here, Ken asks for £12,000 in return for his work to build Jack 's conservatory. Therefore, when Jack ‘accordingly contacts Ken to say that he will be employing him to do the building work, ' Jack has accepted Ken 's offer, and both parties have entered into a legally binding contract. Jack 's statement qualifies as an acceptance since there is correspondence between the two parties, whereby both the offer and acceptance are on the same terms; there is nexus, where the acceptance is in response to the offer; and finally, there is communication on both parts. Moreover, when Jack states that he will accept the ‘most competitive ' tender, he could argue that the recommendation from ‘Barnie, ' his ‘neighbour ' who expresses that ‘Ken is an excellent builder ' constitutes Jack 's meaning of the ‘most competitive. ' However, this is not relevant unless Bob wishes to argue in court that Jack 's proposal was indeed an invitation to tender, which constitutes an offer, as according to Harvela.

The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.

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

If Lyddie signed the petition she might not make as much money. She has to pay what she owes on the farm. “She must earn all the money to pay what she owed. So she can gather her family on the farm, while there is a family to gather.(88)” So she can have a house when she leaves the factory. If lyddie lost her looms she would not get paid enough. “She only had two looms instead of the four she had over the summer. She needed the money. She had to have the money.(89)” If she did not make a lot of money it would be hard for her to send some to her mom. Lyddie can not fall back on her work. “ she could not fall behind in her production or else her pay would drop.(100)” If she fell back on her work she would not make a lot of money. If Lyddie signed the

There are many ideas about the correct basis for contractual obligation. They include promise, consideration, and cause. All jurisdictions follow at least one. In Thomas E. Davitt’s The Elements of Law, the author articulates a very credible argument for the basis for contractual obligation being one of those named above. Davitt simplifies the arguments for all of these and names one correct basis: the promise itself. Generally Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., The Elements of Law, 272 (1959). This paper will argue in favor of Davitt’s writings. The basis for contractual obligation is the promise itself. In order to effectively argue in favor of one basis over the possible others, it is necessary to discuss and rule out the others.

When it comes to commercial transaction, it is generally presumed that the contracting parties must have the intention to create a legal binding contract. This simply means that if the parties signed a contract for business related activities, then in case the other party fails to fulfill the contractual provision then the other party will be able to sue the other party.

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.

Wave 2 Spanish 8-23-16 v2.xlsx  Spanish Leveling Concatenation tab is missing in the file.

As one can imagine, the business atmosphere is filled with agreements between businesses and individuals. Written documentation of contracts is preferred and used most of the time, with a small portion of businesses using oral agreements. Contracts that are written to provide individuals involved with legal documentation of the expectations held for both parties and how adverse situations will be resolved. Companies use contracts as a tool to protect them and their resources. Although business contracts are legally binding documents, their effectiveness relies on an “ethical framework to fulfill the obligations of the contract.” The owner of the produce company and Marshall Petersen, a local health foods business owner are in desperate

To create a contract there must be a common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations, mutually communicated expressly or impliedly (Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd).

The given scenario pertaining to, the existence and legal obligations of a contract between Margaret and Emily, raises question upon certain aspects of contract law. Those being, intention, consideration, contractual capacity and equity. Bellow will be a detailed analysis on the issues raised, legal reasoning and interpretation of the issues as to advise Emily on how to resolve this domestic dispute.

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

Acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of consent to the terms of an offer. An offer may only be accepted by the person to whom it is made unless an agent is authorized to accept on behalf of that person. In addition, an acceptance must be made in the manner requested or authorized by the offering party. If the party to whom the offer is made

Gina decides to accept Jamie’s tender and in doing so sends a formal document in the form of a letter to Jamie, stating the terms and conditions of her acceptance. It is at this point that Gina has accepted Jamie’s tender and the terms of intention and consideration to form a contract have been met by Gina and now relies on Jamie being able to meet the terms of the contract and giving a formal reply to Gina to complete the contract.

In general, intention exists where can be demonstrated that there is an agreement. The law in this area requires an evidence of implied intention of the both parties to be bind by an agreement. (Pentony, 2003, p 57). Two presumptions need to be considered: