The Existence And Legal Obligations Of A Contract Between Margaret And Emily

An important idiosyncrasy of Emily's that will help the reader to understand the bizarre finale of the story, is her apparent inability to cope with the death of someone she cared for. When deputies were sent to recover back taxes from Emily, she directed them to Colonel Sartoris, an ex-mayor that had told her she would never have to pay taxes, and a man that had been dead for ten years. Years before this incident, however, after her father had died, she continued to act has if he had not, and only allowed his body to be removed when threatened with legal action. Considering the fate of her lover's corpse, one suspects she would have kept her father's corpse also, had the town not known of his death.

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

attempted to make Miss Emily once again pay her taxes. They met no success in doing so and did nothing further. The same was so when Miss Emily bought arsenic. The pharmacist requested a reason for buying it, but without an answer, he let Miss Emily do as she pleased. When a disgusting odor came from Miss Emily's House, instead of telling her to fix the problem and hurt her pride, four men attempted to fix it themselves in secret. Overall Miss Emily answered to no one.

He then goes on to describe how “Colonel Sartoris invented an involved tale to the effect that Miss Emily’s father had loaned money to the town, which the town, as a matter of business preferred this way of repayment.” Remitting Miss Emily’s taxes was a

When Miss Emily’s father passed away she began to start acting out. Emily is stuburned like her father, who refuses to change. Although her father had lots of money, he only left Miss Emily the home. Soon the town started asking Miss Emily to pay her taxes. But, she refused to do so. Colonel Sartoris, the mayor of the town, planned to not make Miss Emily pay taxes on her house, “Not that Miss Emily would have accepted charity” (452), trying not to make it seem like Colonel Sartoris was offering her charity. He made up an imaginary loan from her father to the town

During the conversation Miss Emily tells the men “See Colonel Sartoris. I have no taxes in Jefferson” (31). Colonel Sartoris has been dead for almost ten years. Emily’s behavior not only shows mental instability but also that she may be delusional and confused.

It is obvious that Miss Emily acknowledges the written notice; after all she sends it back, but without payment. She does not seem to acknowledge the authority of the town when the men pay her a visit about the taxes they claim she owes. These two actions by Miss Emily tell me that she has control not only of not paying the taxes, but also of the men demanding them. She barely lets them speak and gets them thrown out of her house without the money they went there to collect.

Joan violated her legal duty of loyalty by impairing Gagnon's rights with relevancy the Shelburne property. Like all fiduciaries, Joan owed Gagnon the duty of utmost good faith and absolute loyalty. The illustration mandate of that primal legal duty beholden Joan to act, within the absence of language within the power of attorney to the contrary, entirely in and two additional Gagnon's interests, even at the expense of her own interest in matters connected with the agency.

Miss Emily was an important character in the town of Jefferson. For some people she represented the old days when her family had a reputation and was highly respected. On the other hand, “Alive, Miss Emily had been a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town…” (Faulkner), for other she was a burden to the city. After political changes her exemption from paying taxes become an issue. Her status didn’t mean anything anymore and she was supposed to be treated like everybody else. However, the fact that she was the last member of the great family made her someone special and after few attempts of sending her tax notices, even a new generation of towns officials decided to let

Miss Emily even assumed things herself. She thought that she was so prestigious that she did not think she had to pay taxes, as her father did not. She assumes her status and thinks she has something over everyone. She refuses to pay her money and thinks there has been a mistake. She just repeats she has not received any taxes in Jefferson. She judges the sheriff and does not consider him the sheriff. She doubts his authority and no one makes her pay the money.

"Alive, Miss Emily had been a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town" (pp. 119)

Due to the different roots of the two systems, the definition of a contract, as well as its formation, differ between contract law in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Civil Law Jurisdictions (France). The Common Law views contracts as bargains, exchange, a simple agreement has no binding force. It is mainly concerned with forecasting the impact and the binding legal consequences of a party’s promise. The structure or purpose of the contract is not as important as knowing whether the promise of performance that the contract is based upon is enforceable.

A contract is an agreement made with an intention of legal rights and obligations which the law will enforce. It contains the agreement, consideration and intention. It also have some other things to consider, like capacity of parties, genuine consent or legality of object.

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.