Contracts Are Contracts

All contracts are agreements, but not all agreements are contracts. An agreement between two parties is enforceable by the law if all requirements are met. A contract legally binds two or more parties who promises to do or abstain from doing certain acts. There must be an offer by the offeror, and a corresponding acceptance for a contract to be established. An offer must be supported by an acceptance which must include a consideration. Both parties involved must have the intention to create legal relations which are attainable to achieve and parties are willing to be lawfully bounded. The general rule basically demands that the performance of a contract must be exact and specific and that it should be accordance to with what the parties had

When the man passed away, his executor who was the defendant, accepted that the widow is allowed to resume occupying the house with a promise that she would pay 1 pound annually and maintain the house in good state. In spite of everything, as time passes, the executor attempted to oust the widow, thus she placed a claim for violation of contract. She asserted that the prior promise was not bound up for the consideration was insufficient. The court notwithstanding concluded that the plaintiff’s promise to resume the house’s maintenance and pay yearly fees was ample consideration to make the homeowner’s promise incumbent. A similar principle was applied in Chappell & Co v Nestle, whereby, in this case, Nestle conducted a unique promotion including a song record entitled “Rockin’ Shoes” and buyers could receive a copy by posting in 1s6d and three packaging of Nestle’s chocolate bar wrappers. The record’s copyright owners lodged a claim against Nestle arguing that they should be paid royalties for each record sold. To compute the royalties payable, it was obligatory to determine how much did Nestle price each record, and the copyright posessors asserted that the price included the three chocolate bar wrappers. On the contrary, Nestle defended that the 1s6d amounted to the consideration and that the wrappers they collected are disposed of. The House of Lords resolved that it was unreasonable that the chocolate bar wrappers were unworthy to Nestle and that they did compose part of the