Understanding The Formation Of An Obligation And Its Different Types

The law of contract requires that there must also be evidence of an intention to create legal relations between the parties. However it is usually held that the decision is against the intention for an agreement domestic in nature to be legally binding, such as in the case of Cohen v Cohen where an agreement between family members that may be morally binding will not necessarily create a lawfully binding contract. However there are exceptions to this. When both parties show an intention to enter a legally binding arrangement and it would be unreasonable for one party to revoke their decision, the arrangement holds evidence of a possible contract.

A’s promise to B can only be enforced by B if B has given consideration for that promise;

A contract is a bargain which two or more parties entered into voluntarily with a lawful object, each of whom intends to create one or more legal responsibility between them in law. Thus, a contract may be formed when two or more parties each promise to perform or to refrain from performing a little action now or in the future. (Boston, T. 1779) What is more, contract law shows what promises or commitments our society believes should be legally binding. Similarly, Professor Arthur Corbin's (1874–1967) famous first axiom of contract law is that the main purpose of law is the realization of reasonable expectations induced by promises. Hence, comments demonstrate that the purpose of contract law is to protect legal promises or commitments between two or more parties which build a

Mutuality of obligation-This refers to the parties’ mutual understanding and also assents in expressing their

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.

The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally

• Section 232 (injunction); Section 246 (corrective advertising; management to undertake training); Section 151 (fine); Section 218 (court enforceable undertakings)

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.

you want to get a legal remedy. You can hire a private lawyer, and you

A contractual duty is an arrangement which involves a legal agreement between people, for example in Pittwood (1902) a railway crossing keeper has a duty of shutting the gates of the crossing when a train was due, but he failed to do so. A person was crossing the line was struck and killed by the train. Because the keeper failed to do his duty the keeper would be guilty for manslaughter.

Contracts can be defined through promises between parties that are enforceable through law. We know that both parties agreed verbally, an oral agreement was made to hold the car for one day with a hundred-dollar deposit and Stan agreed to the terms that the deposit was refundable. Contracts can be in in two form which are written or oral. Based on the elements of contracts, many fundamentals factors are considered mandatory to form a contract that is binding on parties and are primarily outlined through the following:

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

Younger L.J: in all cases the obligation must, “be such as, in view of the surrounding circumstances, was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time when the transaction was entered into, and was at that time within the grantor’s power to fulfil.”

Cases under unilateral mistake can be divided into three categories: Firstly mistaken identity, secondly mistake as to the terms of a contract and thirdly mistake as to the nature of a document signed. The main focus in this discussion is mistaken identity, where one party is mistaken as to the identity of another. Mistaken identity may happen in two different

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.