Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of liquidated damages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of liquidated damages
Introduction
Liquidated damages is a term commonly found in every standard form of building contract, which requires one party who has been in breach of contract to pay the innocent party of the contract a pre-estimated sum of money. Without the clause of liquidated damages in the contract, it takes much longer time and effort to prove the contractual obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff in the event of breach of contract. This is particularly important to construction industry, where chances of having project delayed are common.
The law until now
For at least a century, the English law has prohibited contracting parties from agreeing terms which are designed to punish a breaching party by imposing a liability for a particular breach
…show more content…
In that case, Dunlop, a tyre manufacturing company, entered into a sales of goods contract with New Garage. The contract expressly stipulated that New Garage would not re-sell the goods below the list price. Clause 5 of the contract further stipulated that, where New Garage was in breach of the contract, it would pay Dunlop £5 for each and every tyre, cover or tube sold below the list price. There was no question that New Garage was in fact in breach of Clause 5. The issue was whether Clause 5 was a penalty clause and thus …show more content…
This set of rules, however, have been modified in the recent case of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; Parkingeye LTD v Beavis [2015].
Mr. Makdessi agreed to sell his controlling stake in the Middle East’s largest marketing communications group to Cavendish by instalments. The agreement came with restrictive covenants to Mr. Makdessi, in which Mr. Makdessi would need to forfeit the balance of the sale price and would be obligated to sell his remaining shares at a price excluding goodwill value in case of breach of the restrictive covenants. Mr. Makdessi agreed that he had in breach of it but he alleged that the two clauses are penalty clauses and therefore unenforceable. The case was submitted to Supreme Court for final
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 498
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.
Were the items specially manufactured goods? Is the defendant to blame since the items cannot be sold at any other location? Is the verbal agreement for the sale of goods more than $500 enforceable?
Those who are to benefit from the covenant in today’s law can now be referred to by some generic description a description of class for example the 'owners of Hudson' however they must be in existence when the covenant is made and they must also be identifiable moreover the covenant must clearly be intended to be made with them as well. The cases of (White v Bijou Mansions) (1937)4 and (Amsprop Trading v Harris Distribution) (1997)5 are examples which illustrate and support the view of the LPA 1925, s.56(1).... ... middle of paper ... ... Benefits of a covenant may also be subject to express assignment at common law as long as it is not a personal covenant; it must also be done in writing and notice must be given to the covenantor under s.136 LPA 19259.
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
The case study in question is associated with the area of Company Law. Company Law is concerned with the regulation of powers, rights, duties and liabilities of the company and constituencies that are closely linked to the company . Company Law incorporates the Companies Act 2006, which regulates the relationship between the company and its managers. The company is a separate legal entity, through the Articles of Association the powers of a company are designated and exercised by the board of directors on behalf of the company. In relation to this we must examine the specific areas of the authority for allotment of shares, grounds on which there may be objections and the procedure of the transfer of shares. Once each area has been fully scrutinized a conclusion can be determined on the legal situation.
This case deals with Company Law and more specifically with share capital in relation to allotment of shares and transfer of shares. With reference to the Companies Act 2006 and appropriate case law it is hoped that a reasoned conclusion is reached for the issues put forward by Verity.
Based on common law and precedent, the English law of contract has been formulated and developed over a number of years with it’s primary purpose to provide a regulated framework within which individuals can contract freely. In order to ensure a contract is enforceable there are certain elements which must be satisfied, one of which is the doctrine of consideration. Lord Denning famously professed; “the doctrine of consideration is too firmly fixed to be overthrown by a side wind” . This is a crucial indication that consideration has long been regarded as the cardinal ‘badge of enforceability’ in the formulation and variation of contracts in English common law.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
[7] Farrar (1998) chap. 7 [8] Salomon v Salomon [9] Lennards Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co.[1915] AC 153 [10] As occurred in Daimler v Continental Tyres [1915] 1 KB 893. [11] As quoted by F. Moghadam in QMWLJ 1 p36. [12] e.g. Gilford Motor Co. v Horne [1933] Ch.935 [13] S.213 [14] S.214 [15] D.H.N Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets L.B.C ([1976] 3 All ER 462) [16] [1983] 3 WLR 492. [17] cf.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
In case of a valid contract between more than one or two parties, if one of the parties fail to fulfill the terms in the contract, a contractual liability occurs. For example, as Hakim offered AED 5000 for Sahir to construct
Damages – if the other party cause’s drastic damages that cost the other party or affect it negatively than the other party can sue and take them to court of law, and the court may claim that the affected party may be paid and be taken back to its original position as it was
When analyzed in depth it is evident that Section 24 (4) of the Arbitration Act paves the way to apply principles ...