A binding contract was formed between Beem and myself on May 2 when Beem received 50% of the agreed upon purchase price for car parts. The following day, Beem informs me he will not deliver the parts per our agreement, therefore breaching our contract. Later that day I discover Beem is insolvent, consequently that significantly limits my remedy options, however, I would seek specific performance and punitive damages. I chose specific performance because the product I was trying to purchase is unique and there are no suitable alternatives. Parts for a classic vehicle are difficult to find and are no longer manufactured. Due to the limited supply, locating the required parts from another source to complete the restoration would be extremely
difficult if not impossible. Beem knew of the limited availability of those parts when he chose to enter into the contract with me, but instead of fulfilling his duty to me he decided to breach the contract in favor of a larger profit. I am simply seeking for Beem to fulfill his end of the contract by delivering the parts as we originally agreed. I would seek punitive damages to make a statement to Beem that an individual cannot breach a legally binding contract when a better offer comes along. Beem must be made aware that there are consequences to such actions. Beem is insolvent making any monetary remedy impossible. Specific performance is rare, but these are unusual circumstances. There is no suitable alternative for the car parts and I would be unable to complete the restoration to my classic car.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
Friganim Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. Facts: Friganim Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered into. In the first of the two contracts, Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. (smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract than the first agreement)
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
California and Hawaiian Sugar Company contracted Sun ship to build a vessel. The contract gave Sun Ship almost two years to complete the work. The contract contained a liquidated clause that required Sun Ship to pay 17,000 dollars per day for ever day that the ship was not delivered after the agreed date. The ship was delivered after eight and a half months after the agreed delivery date. During the period, the ship had not been delivered, California and Hawaiian Sugar Company suffered actual losses of 368,000 dollar. The defendant refused to pay the liquidated damages and the plaintiff brought an action to recover the damages.
If a breach of contract is both material and opportunistic, the injured promisee has a claim in restitution to the profit realized by the defaulting promisor as a result of the breach. Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.
When discussing the concept of contract law, there exist two bodies of legal rules that may apply to the contract. These bodies are the common law of contracts and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC. The common law of contracts is court made and is constantly changing, but the UCC is required in every state within the U.S.A. It is important to know which one to use and when, as well as what the differences between them are.
Contrary to what most people might think, the solution for breach of contract is not designed to punish the guilty party, instead it is to protect and preserve the rights and reasonable expectations of the party seeking reimbursement. The purpose of the contract law is that in the event of one party not fulfilling their obligation towards the other party, the party harmed will be compensated for its losses. In most cases the standard solution for breach of contract is money reimbursement, however, in some special cases the court can assign the party to perform a specific performance or injunction. With money reimbursement the court will allow the harmed party to prove to the court the amount of money necessary to reimburse for the losses, in other words, to prove that the amount of money the harmed company is seeking will reflect the guilty company performing the contract. The innocent party has three available options to them, which include self-help remedies, judicial remedies and arbitration.
Offer and Acceptance in the Courts In dealing with problems of offer and acceptance, the Courts have taken a strict approach, stating that there must be clear offer and acceptance in order to create a binding contract. As such, offers must be clear on their terms and capable of acceptance and can only be accepted on terms that mirror the offer, as established in the case of Gibson v ManchesterCityCouncil (1979) [1]. There are dicta in certain cases, notably in the judgments of Lord Denning MR, which have attempted to mitigate this harsh approach, in the case of Butler Machine Tools Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-o Corporation (England) Ltd (1979)[2].
Other cases of termination were studied according to the investigation done on termination in Construction Contracts through laws and provisions related to the topic.
whether the printing on a ticket was clear or not clear and not partly obscured or obscured,
Is there a valid and legally binding contract between David Driver and Woolly World Ltd.?
Both Lord Diplock and Lord Steyn have at some point taken a negative view towards the doctrine of privity, the former described the privity rule as “an anachronistic shortcoming that has for many years been regarded as a reproach to [the] law ” and the later declaring it has having “no place in our more complex commercial world ”. The decisive case that establishes the doctrine of privity of contract is Tweedle v Atkinson , where the courts ruled that there is no legal entitlement conferred on third parties to an agreement nor are third parties able to derive any rights from that agreement nor subject to any burdens imposed by it.
What is actually considered a valid contract? The first issue we must look at in this contract dispute is to determine if there is even a valid contract. A valid contract has three basic elements an offer, an acceptance and consideration. If a contract meets your states requirements for a binding legal agreement, you are generally bound by that contract. The essential terms of a contract identify the parties to the contract, subject matter of the contract, contract price, and the time for performance of the contract. Intent to establish a contract must be definite and evident. Basically, it’s clear that you and the other person intended to enter a contract. If a contract appears to be binding and enforceable on its surface, that contract maybe
In this assignment, the topic is about dispute of contract between two people (Peter Watt and Thurston Binns). Here I was assign to advice Thurston’s encountering the problems that he faced. The subjects that to be discuss are; Contract, Offer and Acceptance, Partnership & Private Limited Company, Exclusion Clause and Misrepresentation. I’ll be using IRAC method (Issues, Rules, Application and Conclusion) and as well recommendation for supporting Thurston’s. Further information, the deal was agreed by both parties, yet after the concert held the problems arose which does not satisfied Thurston’s.
phoned three people and told them “the stock is yours if you can go to