Undue Influence (Malaysia)

Id. at 74. The court's conclusion of unconscionability was supported by findings of additional factors. Id. at 174. There is evidence of concealment, misrepresentation, and undue advantage on the part of Mrs. Derby as well as emotional weakness on the part of Mr. Derby. Id. at 74. In Jones, Section 2-302 of the UCC authorizes the court to find, as a matter of law, that a contract or a clause of a contract was "unconscionable at the time it was made", and upon so finding the court may refuse to enforce the contract, excise the objectionable clause or limit the application of the clause to avoid an unconscionable result. Jones, 298 N.Y.S.2d 264 (Sup. Ct. 1969).

Duress is a principle recognized in most areas of law (including criminal law); Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment” . But with regard to contract it describes a situation whereby a party is induced by threats to enter into agreement with another. In Seear v Cohen a father signed promissory notes after being informed that proceedings will be brought against his son for allegedly misappropriating finds. It was held that such threats amounted to duress, and as such the father had the option to rescind the contract. As a general principle, duress can be a ground for which a party rescinds or sets aside a contract and claim damages. As such, it grants the reliant party to render the contract voidable .

Both parties must be bound.” Both parties must be required to perform under the contract, “in other words, it must be enforceable originally, or not at all.” Sayres v. Wheatland Group, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009). As stated by The Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia "if it appears that one party was never bound on its part to do the acts which form the consideration for the promise of the other, there is a lack of mutuality of obligation and the other party is not bound." Busman v. Beeren & Barry Invs., LLC, 69 Va. Cir. 375 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005).

An agreement not supported by consideration on both sides is nudum pactum (‘a naked agreement’) and unenforceable.

In week four’s theory practice, we reviewed the case scenario of Big Time Toymaker vs Chou in regards to determining the validity of a contract.  As we’ve reviewed, an agreement or mutual assent is of course essential to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind (Melvin, 2010).

t. P1) An agreement cannot bind unless both parties to the agreement know what they are doing and freely choose to do it.

P2 EXPLAIN THE LAW IN RELATION TO THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT IN A GIVEN SITUATION

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.

Contract is an agreement enforceable by law under S.2(h) of Contarcts Act 1950 .An offer is referred as proposal which is made when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence are defined under S.2(a) of Contracts Act 1950. S.4(1) of the Contract Act 1950 provides the communication of proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the offeree. What the offeree has done should not be a coincidence of what was offered by the offeror. In the case R v. Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 227 , the Western Australian Government advertised a reward for information leading to arrest and conviction of the persons responsible for the murders

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.

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

The contract in English law enhances principle of freedom of contract. Indeed, the terms of the contract is freely determined and agreed by the parties. However, there are various circumstances in which additional terms may be implied into the agreement. The aim of implied terms is often to provide a supplement to a contractual agreement in the interest of making bargain more effective, to achieve fairness between the parties and to alleviate hardship.

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.

Contractual agreement has always been viewed in terms of offer and acceptance. The universal principle to contract law has always been parties may get into an agreement in whichever way they deem fit and they are subject to certain terms as they choose. As far as legal requirements vital to their formation are binding contracts may be formed. Moreover a binding agreement may be manifested in terms of writing or in verbal form.

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.