law of contract

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

39. Under the doctrine of ________, the plaintiff may only recover the proportionate amount of damages attributable to the defendant’s negligence

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

If you contend that the Plaintiff has made an admission, or declaration against interest, please state the substance of the alleged admission or declaration together with the time and place of the alleged admission or declaration and the names and addresses and telephone numbers of the persons, if any, who were present.

For a plaintiff to win a case they need the following. Show that they are

If any of these elements be wanting, the plaintiff fails to establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care in making the statement or giving the advice.

In a contract, the parties may name a sum to be payable in the event of breach. If such sum is a genuine pre estimate of loss it is termed liquidated damages, and if it bears no reflection on the loss suffered, it is termed a penalty. Courts are reluctant to enforce penalty clauses and in such cases the sum stipulated is normally reduced. It has been perceptively observed by Fansworth that in comparison to the bargaining power which parties enjoy in negotiating their substantive contractual rights and duties, their power to bargain over their remedial rights is surprisingly limited. They are not at liberty to name an extravagant sum having no relation

count as good consideration for a lesser payment. unless something extra has been given up the person is still able to sue for the balance. It is also important that it must be equitable for the promisor to go back on his promise

Upon fulfillment of the four criteria, namely that the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the claimant’s expense and there are no defences available for the defendant, a claimant will qualify for restitution of unjust enrichment as established in Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd. Change of position is one of the numerous defences which may be used when it would be excessive to allow a restitution claim at the defendant’s expense. This essay will evaluate the defence of change of position and reinforce the stance that it is adequately effective in protecting a defendant from hardship.

The plaintiff, Photo Productions Ltd entered into the contract with defendant Securicor Transport Ltd. One of the employee of Respondent Musgrove started a fire at Photo Production's factory to make himself warm while on duty but he accidentally burnt whole factory including stock worth £615,000. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages on the ground that they were liable for the act of their employee. The defendant argued that they should not be held liable as there is an exclusion clause in its contract clearly stated that "under no circumstances be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee… unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of defendant"

The rule of foreseeability generally defines that when one party breaches the contract and causes the damages, the breaching party is liable to compensate to the injured party in a foreseeable scope of losses . Specifically, an injured party only can ask for damages which are naturally caused by the breach or may be deduced in tacit consent by the parties at the making contract time. This rule derives from a classic case: Hadley

"(i ) n contract, damages are awarded with the object of placing the plaintiff in the position in which he would have been had the contract been performed - he is entitled to damages for loss of bargain (expectation loss) and damage suffered, including expenditure incurred, in reliance on the contract (reliance

The defendant must have reasonably foreseen that the statements would be put to use by the plaintiff

He stated that the additional benefit that Roffey derived by way of Williams’ timely performance of his contractual obligations was sufficient consideration to render Roffey’s promise enforceable. Following the breach of contract, Williams claimed £10,847 worth of damages. However, the trial judge, with whom the Court of Appeal (COA) sided, only awarded £3,500. The test for determining whether a contract could be altered legitimately was established as follows: 1)If A has a contract with B for work, 2) before it is done, A has reason to believe B may not be able to complete, 3)A promises B more to finish on time, 4) A obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit from giving the promise, 5)there is no economic duress or fraud...