Unit 2 Business Law Essay

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 [1991] 1 QB 1. Even though, she can argue that Ben had not given sufficient consideration

Nevertheless, whether the breach has caused the loss claimed may be based on the contract itself. Sometimes, it may be down to the judge to decide whether it would have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time of contract was made that the delay in conversion would result in the loss of the potential extra business capacity. If Ben had no knowledge of the ‘business loss’, Clare would not be able to claim losses as a result of Ben being unable to fulfil the contract. By contrast, Ben would have been liable if Clare had made him aware of the ‘potential business loss’. On top of that, With no doubt that it was in the contemplation of both Clare and Ben that if Ben could not finish the job, Clare would need to look for another builder to complete the conversion. Shortly after Ben has committed an anticipatory breach of contract, Clare acted swiftly to stop losses (potential business losses as increased capacity of the business were delayed) going any further than necessary, she engaged another builder who finished the work for £14,000. Clare has to pay £4,000 extra compare to the original contract with Ben in order to complete the conversion. Clare’s mitigation in the circumstances seems to be the best that could have been achieved regardless of the

The extent to which Clare can demand exact and entire performance from Ben will depend on the construction of the contract and the intentions of the parties. Clare will be discharged from all liabilities as to payment if she is entitled to reject the contract. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 aims to protect consumers against bad workmanship or the poor provision of services. Just as with Sale of Goods, Supply of Goods and Services Act contains statutory rights, which don’t have to be specifically mentioned in any contract, but cannot be excluded. One of these is building and repair work must be carried out with reasonable care and skill. Carrying out a service with reasonable care and skill means it should be performed to a good standard and should be done to the standard of a reasonably competent trader or professional. Any goods or materials used must match their description and be of satisfactory quality. They must be fit for normal use and for any purpose you specifically pointed out beforehand to the builder. Reffering to Clare’s case, as she became concerned that Ben's workmanship was of poor quality, she might plan to cite a breach in contract due to an absence of reasonable care and skill. Additionally, she must make it clear to Ben that she is rejecting the performance by writing a list of the problems, otherwise by accepting the work done by Ben so far,