Question 1a: The legal issue in this question is whether or not there is a binding contract between Leila and Julie since Julie had returned Leila’s gold locket and chain without telephoning Leila first. In this situation, the general principal of law relevant to this issue is that, Leila has made a commercial agreement of a unilateral offer by placing an advertisement in the newspaper. This offer has been made to the world at large hence, a promise of performance of an act made to the world cannot be revoked. This principal of law has been justified in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256. In this case, Carbolic Smoke Ball has posted an advertisement stating that whoever bought the smoke ball and used it correctly …show more content…
The general rule is that past consideration is not a valid consideration. This principal of law was established in the case of Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234. In this case, Roscorla bought Thomas’s horse. After the sale, Thomas promised that the horse was “sound and free of vice”. However, the horse proved otherwise. When this matter went to court, it was held that Thomas’s promise is concluded as a past consideration as the promise was made after the …show more content…
In the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132, Hyde made an offer to Wrench to buy his estate at a lower price but his offer was then refused. When Hyde sought to accept the initial offer, it was held that there was no contract made since the initial offer no longer exist. The principal of law established from Hyde v Wrench(ibid) is a counter-offer effectively destroys original offer. However, the termination of contract due to counter offer would only be applicable if Edwin and Adam did not enter into a contract for the purchase of the car at an agreed price of
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
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.
Promissory Estoppel in NY states that in the absent of a written contract, a promise or an implied agreement is sufficient to hold the company responsible.
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
The scenario I have been given highlights the main complexity of contract law. It touches on issues such as unilateral contracts, revocation as well as advertisement. I will be advising Mick (claimant) answering: Whether Yummy chocolate is liable to give a year supply of chocolate as advertised?
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.”
McOskar Enterprises, Inc. owns and manages a health and fitness center identified as “Curves for Women”. Tammey J. Anderson, the complainant, joined Curves on April 2, 2003. As part of the joining process Anderson signed a release of liability agreement. This agreement released Curves from any liabilities related to injuries that might be sustained by contributing in any activities or through the use of equipment. The agreement also stated that participants agreed to all risks of death or injury that could occur, Anderson read and signed the agreement of terms with Curves. After completing the liability agreement, Anderson began working out under the observation of a Curves’ trainer using the machines within the facility. During the workout Anderson notified the trainer that she began to feel pain in her neck, shoulder and arm, but finished her workout. She continued to feel the pain when she got home and pursued medical attention. As part of her prescribed medical treatment she was sent for a course a physical therapy. In June 2003 Anderson underwent a cervical discectomy, a procedure used to treat nerve or spinal cord compression. After her procedure Anderson sued Curves, claiming negligent acts during her workout. Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 NW 2d 796 (Minn. 2006).
Although verbal agreements for the sale of goods more than $500 are not valid, there is an exception to this because these goods were specially manufactured. In order for a goods to be specially manufactured, the goods have to be particularly for the buyer, unacceptable for others, seller had commitment for the manufacturing of the goods and a reasonable commitment stating the goods are only for the buyer. Therefore, these categories of specially manufactured goods proved that Kalas won the
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
The offence Harry would be charged with is William’s murder. The area of Law that this case is concerned with is criminal law (homicide). The two offences that constitute homicide are murder and manslaughter. The classic definition of murder was set by Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797). Murder is defined by the Law as causing the death of a human being within the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It comprises of 2 elements. These are the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (intention).
Slideshare (2004) Carlill v Carbolic smoke Ball Company [online] Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/VivekAnanda1/carbolic-smoke-ball-co [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
In the case of one party promising to give another party £50, it is merely seen as a gift, therefore this is considered unenforceable as a simple contract. This may be justifiable as there is nothing which clearly illustrates that, it is a necessity for a party to give something, in order for them to be able to enforce a promise. This is also known as the “quid pro quo,” it has been similarly illustrated in; Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] AC 847 (HL).
The latter party will well be able to rescind where such party had been induced by a misstatement to enter into the contract. This is the general rule.