According to Amy Dru Stanley, who is a professor at The University of Chicago, stated that “A contract is in principle, a purely voluntary obligation undertaken in the expectation of gaining a reciprocal benefit – and equivalent of some sort or (. . .) in the language of the law, consideration”. (Stanley, 2014). There are many contract types that that exist primarily to determine whether a promise will be enforced by the courts. Theese contract types include, unilateral and bilateral contracts as well as formal and in the case of this discussion, simple contracts. Essentially, a valid simple contract is subject to three qualities; intention, agreement and consideration, without these three significant requirements, the contract can be annulled However, it is often the case that in many situations when an offer is accepted between two parties, (that are not commercial), the contract does not carry any legal penalties when one party fails to stand by the promise (Terry and Giugni, 2005). Going into the case, the courts presume in any social and domestic agreement that legal obligations were never part of the agenda, unless of course evidence is subsequently provided, enhancing the context of the contract. This evidence can be as explicit as the parties stating their legal intentions. The Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 NSW case study, furthers these ideas of legal presumptions (Contract Law, n.d.). In accordance with Article 1.1. and to the defence of Reeves, it was never stated between the parties that legal intentions were a part of the contract’s bounding premise. Furthering on this point, whether the contract had legal intentions or not, the illegalities and immorality revolved around it would have made the contract difficult to be admissible in court. Furthering Reeves’s defence and as to why the contract’s validity may be in dispute, is that upon agreement, both Reeves and Ryder were suffering from mental issues. When a contract is devised certain collective groups are unable to or have a limited capacity to forge a binding agreement. This contractual capacity extends to minors, corporations and in the case of Both parties must provide some form of consideration, most of time it is the exchange of money for a promise to be undertaken. However, considerations can be anything that offers some form of aid to the person being promised or adds to the hardship and strain of the individual making the claim (Terry and Giugni, 2005). According to Lush J from the Currie v Misa contract law case, consideration is “(. . .) in the sense of the law, may consist either in some rights, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party (. . .) or loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other” (Lush, 1857 cited in McKendrick, 2014). Furthering from this, it is wise to understand that a consideration may not be adequate but sufficient enough to meet the needs of the promisee. During trial, the courts are not accustomed to scrutinizing the contents of the exchange, whether it be equitable or equivalent to the value of the promise. However, it must retain sufficiency, or ample value in the eyes of the law. When examining the contract validity between Kevin Reeves and Christie Ryder, it is understood that Ryder agreed to pay a multitude of separate cash considerations (£5 000, £10 000 and other £5 000) with the hope of being killed. These considerations were sufficient enough on either side to confirm the contracts validity in
Defining Issue: In order to make an agreement binding one element that must be used is consideration. Without consideration an agreement may not be enforceable, even if there has been an offer and acceptance. What a promiser demands and receives is the price for the promise, which is consideration. A person who makes the promise is called the promisor, while the person to whom the promise is made to is called the promisee. However, the promisor is not entitled to consideration.
Answer: Judgment for Alfalfa. Alfalfa was in trouble when he was climbing and Darla rescued him from an almost certain serious injury or death. It was a legally sufficient value since Darla did not have to perform such an act, but she did. Afterwards, Alfalfa promised her a check of $1,000, which qualifies for a bargained-for exchange. However, this promise was made in the event when the action already took place. Therefore, there is a past consideration and does not need to be enforced.
The court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract because “the court felt the contract was extremely one-sided. [ Also], it was wrong for Campbell to ask for the court’s help in enforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that “shocks the conscience of the court”)” (Rogers,
Legally enforceable "A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party." (Scheffel, Evan, and Jane P. Mallor, 2010. Chapter 9, Page 321) The Lambert v. Barron case showed us an example of what happens when a contract does not contain all elements to become a legally enforceable contract. Mr. Barron did not accept the offer, Mr. Lambert made no promise to recover money from the disputed contracts owed to Mr. Barron, so there was no promise to perform.
"A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. In other words, when promises have the status of contract, the contracting party harmed by a breach of the contract is entitled to obtain legal remedies against the breaching party" (Mallor et al., 2015, p. 320)
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
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.
The English contract Offer and Acceptance General principles There are three basic essentials to the creation of a contract which will be recognised and enforced by the courts. These are: contractual intention, agreement and consideration. The Definition of an Offer. This is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention (actual or apparent) that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as the person to whom it is addressed accepts it. An offer can be made to one person or a group of persons, or to the world at large.
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
Capacity states persons under the age of 18 whom are classed as minors do not have the lawful capacity to sign a contract. It is illegal to accept a person under that age into a contract. Both parties must be able to both agree to create a legal relationship and be in full well health to agree to the contract. This includes being well to sign the contract with good mental and physical health and be legally ...
This case mentioned below is a fine example of understanding the Law of Contract in a better manner. (Gerald, 2014).
But some courts have held that if the person understood the contract terms and consequences before signing, being under the influence is not enough to void the contract. In the case of Gore v Gibson (1845), it was held that a contract made by a person so intoxicated as not to know the consequences of his act is not binding on him if his condition is known to the other party. However, that such a contract is not void but merely voidable, it was held in Matthews v Baxter (1873) that if the drunken party, upon coming to his sense, ratifies the contract, he is bound by
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,
A contract is generally considered to be an exchange of promises or an agreement between parties which in due course legally binds the parties; this can be enforced by the English Law. A contract is always, referred to the basic foundations of Contract Law, which refers to promises being kept amongst two parties. It is clear that all people make contracts nowadays and do not even consider for a moment that they are forming contracts; these can be formal or informal, oral or written.
A contract is an expressed or implied agreement that legally binds the contracting parties into performing their contractual obligations. It has been defined in the section 2(h) of the Contract Act 1872 as, “An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.” A contract that is not made as a result of expression or implication of mutual consent of the contracting parties is not considered valid. An obligation is a commitment or a duty that is legally binding under a certain discipline. Obligations vary from discipline to discipline.