Many times because of ambiguous wording contract details are up for interpretation and courts need to intervene to resolve disputes. Contract disputes can sever business and personal relationships, but that does not need to be the case. Faith in God can sometimes be the mediation needed to resolve conflicts and mend relationships that otherwise would not have been strong enough to flourish.
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
Lewis is a case in which the mirror image rule is applied and gives an example of common law governing a contract. The Prides owned a house located in Nodaway County. They listed their house for sale when they moved to a farm and found a tenant to rent the house until it sold. They received an offer from Lewis to purchase the house for $55,000. The initial offer from Lewis was rejected. The Prides realtor presented them with the second contract, already signed by Lewis and his realtor. This contract that was signed by Lewis on April 9, 2003, which stated a closing date of May 15, 2003. The Prides had changed the date, by hand, to June 1, 2003, and signed the contract on April 9, 2003. The Prides and their realtor initialed the change however Lewis did not. On the day of closing, Lewis nor his realtor had appeared. When the closing did not occur, the Prides sent him a letter letting him know of his default and relisted the house with a realtor. The house sold for $40,000 in June 2004 and they were unable to find a tenant for that entire year. The Prides sued for breach of contract, seeking the damages for the difference between the $55,000 and the $40,000 it sold for. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Prides, however, Lewis appealed. The appellate court Judge, Judge Presiding Ulrich states, "A contract does not exist without a definite offer and a ‘mirror-image' acceptance. Any acceptance that includes new or variant terms for the offer presented
Consistently, House of Lords held that ‘tenants was entitled to equitable relief against forfeiture of the lease on the ground that the running of the six-month period was suspended during negotiations.’ Nevertheless, House of Lords refused to accept the argument, as ‘it was unsupported by consideration therefore, arguably unenforceable.’
In arriving at its decision the court observed that Beneficial went back on the terms of the contract it had entered into with Google. Google had previously entered into a contract with Beneficial where the two parties had reached an agreement which included protection of Google and it's customers from any infringement claims by Beneficial. Beneficial‘s actions were in breach of contract and Google was entitled to damages. The court thetrfore found Beneficial innovations in breach of contract and were required to pay minimal damages of $1 to Google. The outcome in this case will be binding on all similar cases filed in the same court. The outcome will also be binding on all courts below the District court and only be advisory in superior courts. The decision will also be binding in cases with similar facts in lower courts in other states. The outcome is also advisory to other higher courts in other states. The outcome of the court was appropriate in this case as a breach of contract neccesitates an award of damages for the injured party. Allowing a party to recover damages for breach of contract puts the injured party at a position they would have been if the breach had not occured. An award of damages also deters the other party from any further breaches of the contract. In this case awarding Google nominal damages of $1 does not put the party
1. Because the additional terms become part of the contract,In the battle of the forms, all additional terms become part of the contract unless they are promptly objected to, are material changes or are banned by the offer. Katie sent Phil a text asking him to pick up and deliver her new boots. Phil agreed but only if Katie agreed to go out on a date with him and Katie refused. These additional terms (the date) did not become part of the agreement because Katie refused Phil’s advancement.
There is an agreement between the two parties and considering the parties have a commercial relationship the agreement can be said to have the intention to be binding in law. Although there was all of the above it is difficult to say there was in fact any consideration. Craig does accept the offer and agrees to the deal however it does not appear to be promisory in nature. Craig and Peter are not of the same capacity, Craig being a minor, which the common law states a minor may enter into two types of contracts: a contract for necessities and for the provision of beneficial sources. Either of these criteria appear to represent the purchase of a restaurant. Additionally, a solicitor may appoint a ‘minor certificate’ to allow a minor to enter into a contract such as a business, however, given the facts of the case we cannot ascertain whether it has been given and thus assume Craig was not granted the certificate. I would now advise my client that due to a lack of consideration between the parties, and the fact he lacked capacity there was never a contract to start with, however I would advise him that we must not be caught out in the dispute if the court rules there was a contract thus we must explore other areas to get him out of the
Clare will only be legally bound to her promise to pay the extra £2,500 if Ben can establish that he provided fresh consideration for the promise beyond performance of an existing contractual duty. The traditional view of consideration is that something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances. The economic value of the consideration can be insignificant, but it cannot be in recognition of past event, nor can it be the performance of an existing contractual or public duty. Clare will view the situation as being very similar to Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd  1 QB 1. Even though, she can argue that Ben had not given sufficient consideration
It does not allow for easy discrimination between legitimate and improper modifications, and it can be circumvented if the Galtaco demanding the modification undertakes some new detriment of relatively small value in relation to the gain to be received, or if the both parties go through the ritual of terminating the original contract and executing a new one. It is more efficient to focus directly on the problem of coerced modification by evaluating it under the rules of
To conclude Gloria Smithson’s business venture, Gloria need all three proposals from different suppliers that are capable in fulfilling her business needs. The three potential suppliers are willing to provide great services with lower rate fees. The suppliers are originally from different countries, and they are The Green Leaf Supply Company of the same state here in the United States, The Grupo Embraco, of South America, and The Sunrise Ltd. of China. In order for Gloria to operate, she must find an affordable supplier who is able to manufacture the amount of widgets she needs for her business. In addition, Gloria is required to carefully review the three proposals to ensure that she conduct the proper steps to avoid any personal liability.
If a court declines to amend this Agreement as provided herein, the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions, which shall be enforced as if the offending term or provision had not been included in this Agreement. ARTICLE XLIV. Miscellaneous Provisions. 74. Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
The case of Taylors Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees; Old & Campbell v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society15 showcased the role of unconscionability; Taylors and Old were both under the mistaken belief they could extend their lease. Both parties made improvements on their properties- Taylor without reinforcement, however Olds was reinforced by Liverpool who was
Q. Sue Smasher was a promising young tennis player. In July 1991, when she was 16, she entered into the separate agreements, both of which were to run until July 1993. No. 1, with Lew Lobb, a noted tennis coach whereby he undertook to organize her training and decide which tournaments she should play in. In return, Sue agreed to act on Lew’s advice and pay him 20% of her winnings from tournaments. No. 2, with Drive Power Ltd, whereby Sue promised to use their sports equipment in return for Drive Power paying all her travel expenses.