Menu

Law Contract Study of Case

0 Comment

The case is based on the law of contract. Mead, Sagar and Bampton defines a contract as an agreement, between parties, that is enforceable in law. An agreement must however fulfil certain requirements for it to be considered as a valid contract. One of the essential elements of a valid contract is an agreement between the parties to the agreement. This is brought about by an offer by one party or parties that is then accepted by another party or parties. In making an offer, a party undertake to be bound by his or her terms if the other party, to whom the offer is made, accepts the offer in a legally prescribed manner. Acceptance of the offer completes the agreement of the parties over the subject matter. Another essential element of a contract is existence of consideration. This is defined as the sacrifice made by the party to whom a promise is made for the benefits derived from the offeror. With exemption of a promise made under deed, a contract is only enforceable if it is supported by consideration.Further, a contract is legally enforceable on its parties only if there existed an intention, by the parties, to create a legal relationship. This element distinguishes contracts from social agreements in which parties make informal commitments. Official arrangements are however generally regarded to create legal relations between parties. The parties must have also entered into the agreement with free consent, an element that protects parties from imposed agreements. Free consent in a contract is evaluated with respect to vitiating factors that include mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, and restraint of trade (Gil, 2005, p. 127, 128). The presence of any of these factors, depending on the aggrieved party, makes an agreement into a contract either void or voidable. While a void contract is not enforceable ‘ab initio’, a voidable contract is enforceable at the discretion of the offended party (Goldman and Sigismond, 2010, p. 123). Capacity of the contracting parties and legality of the subject matter of the contract are also essential in determining enforceability of a contract (Mead, Sagar and Bampton, 2009, p. 44).Another principle that arises in the case is breach of contract that is induced by a party’s failure to perform according to the terms of the contract. Conditions, as terms to contracts, go to the root of the contact and can form grounds for termination of a contract by an aggrieved party. A warranty is on the other hand a term that is not very essential to a contract and breaches can only institute damages and not termination of a contract. In the case of Hochster v De La Tour, 118 Eng. Rep. 922 (Q.B. 1853), it was held that an aggrieved party can repudiate a contract even before commencement of the subject matter if one of the parties has breached a condition to the contract (Emanuel, 2006, p. 250. Goldman and Sigism