Aspects of Contract
- Free Turnitin report
- 4,00000 + Total Satisfied Students
- 150+ Executives for Support Service
9792 Downloads 10 Pages 2549 Words
Contract is the term that binds two parties for a specific purpose legally and this also manages all the essential elements of the contracted parties. The present study has been made on different case studies in which some are essential elements of the contract are discussed adequately. Hence in respect to that, types of contracts has been stated along with its meaning and effects. Furthermore the current research has also discussed law and legal regulations that can be applied to different types of contracts in different situations. Lastly the study has also stated elements of vicarious liability in different business situations.
As per the case, Bob goes into Sam's shop and after seeing a book in display he asked to buy a book which Sam has already sold to Carl but he forgot to remove the book from the counter which created confusion in the scene and hence it does not fulfilled all the essential elements of valid contract:
Offer: Here for any valid contract, offer is must to exit which is being given by the Sam to Bob and Carl both in terms of selling books. Here the seller gives offer which can be completed if the buyer is ready to accept the same (Stephenson,2001).
Acceptance: Offer and acceptance are two major aspects of a valid contract and that makes the deal more legally concerned. Here the offer given by Sam has been accepted by Carl, so the contract can be termed as valid. However on the other side, valid contract is also made between Sam and Bob.
Consideration: Consideration is the term that states that both the entered party in the contract have mutually entered into the subsequent contract and both are ready to share all the terms and conditions. As per the case, Sam and Carl both have entered into valid contract as both decided for the buying and selling purposes (Dobson, 2013).
Legal framework: When two party binds in any contract, they need to fulfil all the essential requirements of legal and valid contract and for that, proper documents are required to consider while entering any party.
The categories of contract may differ in nature and this can also be used as per the situations and different work patterns. As per the present case, Sam and Carl have entered into legal contract since both of them have equally decided for the deal. Verbal (written) and non verbal (oral) contract are the major categories of types of contract and the example of oral contract is being expressed in the present report (Haarala and et.al., 2010). Sam forgot to remove the display of the book this is the reason that Bob got confused and thus he wanted to purchase the book from the store. Here Sam is responsible since it is his fault that he did not remove the book from the display. That actually does not includes any sort of contract since Sam had made any deal with Bob. On the other side, Sam and Carl both made a deal for sale of book in which they had not made any contractual agreement and it was just a example of oral communication. This type of contract is valid for some period; however the creditability of the contract is fewer as compared to written contract. On the written side, if Sam would have made written contract with Carl, then he would have showed it to Bob about the sale of book, but due to lack of evidence he orally committed the same thing. Hence from the case, it is clear that written contracts are more reliable as compared to oral contract (Sumner and Williams, 2010). One of the oldest form of contract is collateral contract which is created for the support of main contract agreement.
As per the case, it is mentioned that Bob visits Sam's bookshop so as to purchase books and there he takes a book to the counter to pay for it, but as soon as he gets the book, Sam told him that he has already sold the book to someone else; however he forgot to remove the book from display. Hence Sam refused to sell the book to Bob and he is also liable to do so since he has not made any sort of contrat with Bob. Thus it can be said that the elements of contract does not lie under the case.
Parties: All the parties in the contract are required to specify their consideration in the agreement since they are the only possessions who actually manages major work processes of the organization (Whittaker and Zimmermann, 2000). In the present case, the major parties are Sam, Bob and Carl whom which contract has been made.
Warranty: Under the terms of contract, warranty is the chief factor that specifies that any damage of the product under the given and specified time period will be paid by the company in terms of either exchanging and replacing the entire product.
Breach: Breach of contract arises at the time when any of the party fails to fulfil their responsibilities and this can also arise in case of fraud and cheating (Young, 2009).
Conditions: All the terms and conditions should be properly stated in the contract so that the essential conditions may cover the same necessities.
According to the case, there exist offer since Adam has adveritsed reward of 1000 pounds for the person who paddle across the English Channel. Acceptance also lies in the same case as Brian has accepted the offer and immediately he purchased bath set. However the present case lacks consideration because prior starting the paddle, Adam cancelled the paddle.
In the present case, Adam advertises a reward of 1000 pounds for the first person who paddle across the English Channel in a bath from Dover to Calais. After seeing the advertisement, Brain immediately purchased a bath and sets out for the reward instead of knowing another effects. On the same day, Adam posts another advertisement in which he stated that the channel has been withdrawing the reward and Brain was totally unaware about this fact and he completed paddle from Dover to Calais (Furmston et.al., 2007). Same day Brain claimed for the reward and Adam refuses to pay, so here in this state, it is Brain's fault and due to negligence, he is not entitled to ask for any sort of liability.
However as per legal agreement and acts, local council could not rely on such clause since it is the duty of the council to give proper equipments to the public as they are taking charges against such services. Here in the case exclusion clause can be applied since the local council has not mentioned that something is being mentioned on the back side of ticket. The local council is not allowed to advertise such type of aspects.
The effect of clause as a condition has directed Barry to enter into the state of negligence which he actually ignored while hiring the chair. This also caused injury to Barry and he faced another problem also. The cause of damaged chair also affected his clothes which is further damage of property (Wishart, 2012). Since Barry is not liable to ask for any return, thus the condition can be turned into negligence of act. Barry would have to read the clause mentioned in the ticket as through that he would have protected his clothes. However on the other hand, local council is not authorised for the same thing since the doctrine of law states that something which is damaged and which is not fully equipped should not be hired or sold to customers.
According to the case scenario, the local council and Barry made a legal contract as Barry purchased ticket for acquiring the chair on hire. They made valid contract; however Barry ignored the conditions mentioned in the ticket which is the fault of negligence. When he sat on the chair, the chair collapsed and damaged his clothes and afterwards Barry complained for the same act; however the local council refuses to accept any claim since it is directly mentioned under the clause that no liability is accepted for any damage or injury caused by the failure of any hired equipment. This is the state which shows that it is Barry's fault so he is not entitled to ask for injury and damage (Giliker, 2010).
Both the parties mutually have to decide the ratio of damage and as per that, neglected party have to pay the agreed amount. Hence it is clear that contractual liability occurs at the time when any of the party in the contract remains unable to meet the terms and conditions of the contract (Stephenson, 2001). On the other side, tort of liability is an independent contract which employer against a piece of work. The common law of doctrine holds an employer liable for the negligent acts of its employee. There are few exceptions to this rule and all the entered parties are directly dependent on each other. On the other side, liability in negligence is also arising in the case of Adam and Brain as it is Brain's negligence that he avoided to see the updated advertisement which Adam has posted on the same day. Similarly Sam could have also blamed for the same thing as he failed to remove the book from display even after selling it to Carl (Vicarious Liability, 2013).
Here it is essential for both the agreed parties to consider the duties and responsibilities so that the act of negligence can be avoided. As per the given cases, it is clearly identified that in the case of injury to Barry, he is entirely responsible for the negligence as he would have to read the clause mentioned on the ticket (DiMatteo, 2012). However here in the present case, Mark can claim for vicarious liability from Posh place hotel against the loss of his jewellery. The hotel members always promises the guests to pay consideration about the property of guests since they are directly liable for the same. Nonetheless, hotel is also liable as the entity would have to check the background of people while employing them in the premises. The case of negligence is clearly visible in the present case of Posh place hotel.
Here in the present case, Roger is having rashes in his skin due to long periods of washing up; however he cannot claim for vicarious liability as the hotel has provided gloves top each and every labour, thus it is Roger's negligence that he is not using the gloves. Seeing this on continuous basis lead Colin (the head chef) in anger and as a result he knocked frying pan (Defences to the Tort of Negligence, n.d). This is undoubtedly not allowed as all the workers are not allowed to physically harass anyone at workplace. On the other hand, the hotel owner can also owe Roger under non delegable duty of care because as an employer he is providing safe working environment, but Roger is neglecting the thing and he further is claiming for skin rashes. On the other way, Roger can also bring claim in vicarious liability against Ben for Colin's actions as physical violence is not allowed in any workplace.
Here as per this case, Mark is not entitled to claim for the cost of designer suit since the hotel has already put notice board in which it is cleared written that occupier is not liable after 7 pm and instead of reading, Mark ignored it which is his fault (Olmos, 2011). Under the act of Occupier's Liability 1957, Posh place hotel is not entitled to pay for the damage that caused to his swim suit; but rather considering these aspects, medical amenities can be provided to Mark. Hence this is not the case of defence situation and Occupier is entirely out of the scene.
Duty of care: As per duty of care, the subsequent hotel has managed all its duties and responssiblities as the hotel has already warmed public by putting the board.
Breach of duty: Here breach of duty exists since Mark ignored the warning board and he jumped into the pool which causes damage to him.
Cause infact: If the board would not have been placed as a warning nearby the pool, then Mark would have the opportunity to sue the hotel against Occupier's Liability.
Remote damages: The damage has been caused to Mark due to his ignorance therfore he is not entitled to claim for the damage. He solely is responsible for the accident.
After the robbery, Mark decides to go to the hotel pool for a swim and by the time he reached towards the pool, he ignores the sign of warning and enters in the pool. He got injured as the pool was empty and the accident also injured him badly and tears his expensive designer swim suit. Hence here Occupier's liability can not be applied because Poshplace hotel is not liable for the case.
On the basis of these different case studies, it is clear that both the entered parties in the contract are required to pay consideration about the legal frameworks so that liabilities of tort and negligence can be avoided simultaneously. Contract liability and contractual liability both are discussed in the scenario along with the nature of negligence.
Number of pages: 9
Writer's Qualifications: Graduation
265438 DownloadsView or Download
Number of pages: 7
Writer's Qualifications: Graduation
112362 DownloadsView or Download
Number of pages: 9
Writer's Qualifications: Graduation
92995 DownloadsView or Download
Number of pages: 19
Writer's Qualifications: Graduation
74341 DownloadsView or Download
Get all these features for £54.12 FREEProceed to Order
It’s time to turn to our experts for assignment writing service.