The Fundamental Aims Of The Law Of Contract

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.

Contract law has set out to provide a healthy trade environment. Contracts are promises enforced by the law, with the support of something of value that has a legal purpose. It is an agreement between parties, formed by the elements: offer and acceptance, with all parties having the capacity to perform obligations enforceable by law. There are instances where the enforcement of a contract would bring about gains or losses to society and commerce.

Contracts are an important part of everyday life. They are an essential part of business. As a student of a business law class, I will discuss in this paper several aspects of contracts. This paper will give a definition of a contract and the essential elements necessary to form a valid contract. It will briefly discuss breach of contract and the difference between a material breach and a nonmaterial breach of contract. Examples of legal and equitable remedies available for breach of contracts will be highlighted. Also, legal excuses for nonperformance or other grounds for discharge of contracts will be addressed. Finally, three types of common contracts personally and professionally encountered will be mentioned.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which in Scotland does not need to take a specific form, as a spoken agreement is still equally as enforceable as a written contract in certain circumstances such as in most social and domestic arrangements. A contract creates a legally binding bond between the parties involved. Contracts are made everyday sometimes without even realising it from buying a coffee to buying a house.

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

A contract is an exchange of promises or a promise in exchange for performance, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, per Restatement 2nd of Contracts §1. For the contract to be valid there has to be mutual assent, parties mutually agree upon the same specific thing. Per Restatement 2nd of Contracts §54, there are two types of contracts: unilateral, where acceptance is by performance, and bilateral, where there is an exchange of mutual promises and both of the parties have the rights and duties.

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

A contract is an arrangement between two or more parties that creates rights and obligations to each party. The essential parts of a contract are as follows:

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.

The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

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

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.

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.

Conceptually, reasonable expectations of honest men and sanctity of contract are not in conflict. Indeed, they often point to the same direction – it is the reasonable expectation of an honest man that an agreement should be executed. Although it is observed that the two themes usually work side by side, this essay argues that in regards to the rules of acceptance of unilateral contracts, the English courts place more emphasis on reasonable expectations when making decisions.