The Case Of Construction And Interpretation

Enforceable contract Peter v. Don. Peter will have an enforceable contract with Don if he can show that all the required elements of a contract are present. If there is a contract between the two then it will be governed by the common law requirements of an enforceable contract instead of the Uniformed Commercial Code, which would be used if their agreement had involved the sale of goods. In order for a contract to be formed between Peter and Don the two must react mutual consent Mutual consent can generally be formed through the form of an (A) offer and (B) acceptance. An additional requirement for both parties to show (C) consideration is also

Contract law is relatively consistent regarding whether a contract was actually made and whether the parties involved can be legally held to the contract or not. This is primarily due to the fact that contract law proceeds from law handed down from centuries of civil and common law cases. Basically, two parties have to agree to the terms of the cited contract, after the offer is made and accepted (both parties have had time to review and make changes to the contract, although this process does not always occur), and they have either orally agreed or signed some form of written contract. It can be argued in a court afterword that there was not sufficient consideration or that one party coerced the other into an agreement, but these are usually handled at the signing of the contract. This process is time honored and, as said, has been in place for a long time. But, new types of contracts occur at times and they have a different sort of accounting by the courts. One of these types of contracts is that generally called prenuptial, antenuptial or premarital (Standler, 2009). This paper looks at prenuptial agreements and using the case of Simeone v. Simeone tries to determine some of the pros and cons of treating these agreements more like regular contracts.

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

Rule : : Contract formation requires mutual assent (offer and acceptance), consideration, and no viable defenses to contract formation.

Danny Davidson sold a single family home to Paul and Priscilla Peterson. A long-term relationship between Danny and Paul is the basis for not including a written agreement. The simple contract was made orally and only included the legal object and the amount to be paid. Danny did not disclose a dispute with his neighbor over boundary lines or include information about a soil subsidence in the front yard he claims not to have known about.

Most contracts are valid despite the fact that they may be only oral. Dan was knowledgeable that Pat wanted to buy a home, which she was not financially qualified to purchase. Consequently, he offered to purchase the home and sell it to her, when she had the capital to do so. The statement of Don to Pat, “When you come up with the money, I will sell the home to you for $250,000, plus a fair commission to be determined”, and Pat’s search and identification of a suitable home, and Dan’s purchase supports each intent to be bound.

The parol evidence rule, attempts to eliminate any problems between the two parties in a contract. To do so, this rule will disregard any oral or written agreements between the two parties prior to their contract. Therefore, the final signed contract, preferably in writing, will be looked into if any problems arise in the future. The parol evidence rule levels the playing field for both parties by making sure they both have agreed to the same terms in the contract, regardless of different ideas they have discussed. By eliminating any prior evidence that could modify any terms of the contract, will provide the

Parol evidence rule prevents the introduction of evidence of prior negotiations or agreements that may contradict or modify the original written contract. The written contract is supposed to be the completed, final agreement for both parties. Some exceptions to the parol evidence could be fraud or duress.

People might argue that the parol rule is not effective because of its many exceptions. The rule states that oral evidence prior to the written agreement is inadmissible when the written agreement is to the complete and final version but the many exceptions contradicts the rule. There many exceptions that make prior agreements that were not in the final written agreement admissible.

would give 100 £. The company then deposited 1,000 £ in a bank to show

The relevant rules are every simple contract must be supported by consideration, a promise to fulfil the terms of a contract is not always good consideration, and the rule that an agreement that is commercial in character can amount to a binding contract

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

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

that the document did not appear to be contractual. In D J Hill and Co

Law 1: Under common law, a party can agree to expressed terms within a contract that hasn’t been written and signed (eg agreement to Conditions of Carriage), so long as the party has had reasonable notice of the statement or is included in a document that is reasonable person might consider to be not a contractual