Tort and Contract Law

Civil Law is a branch of law that matters itself with disputes that involve private parties, or negligent acts that cause harm to others. This is in contrast to criminal law which is invoked for the public purpose. Under civil law, there are remedial awards unlike in criminal law which is punitive in nature. These remedies can either be under tort or contract law.

To understand the civil liabilities and or remedies demanded between Andy, Sam and Bob, this can only do so if there is an appreciation of the existence of a contract between them. For this to be envisaged, then the requirements of a contract must be manifested. For a contract to be envisaged it must be mutually accepted by both parties and the manifestation of the principle of consensus ad idem (Holmes, 1897). The US Supreme Court in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v United States, held that where the meeting of the minds was not realized, then no party to the contract can bind the other to it, and as such a nullity. As between Andy and HOTMOTORS there existed this upon the agreement to buy a car which was to the liking of Andy. There must also be an offer and an acceptance for it to be binding. In this case the offer was by HOTMOTORS to which Andy accepted. There ought to be consideration which is deemed to be a core element for the formation of a contract. The rule is that the court troubles itself not in the adequacy of the consideration but rather its sufficiency. To this end, Andy paid $ 8 000 for the car despite its actual worth as opinioned by Maryam value of $ 40.

To this end, Sam can claim a lack of consensus as the car failed to work as would have been expected to. Immediately after purchase it failed to perform later when he had it inspected by a professional. Mary...

... middle of paper ...

...3] A.C. 92

Carnes v. Thompson, (1932) Supreme Court of Missouri. 48 S.W. 2d 903

Chirenje v Vendfin Investments and Others (36/05/01) [2009] ZWSC 11; SC 13/09 (19 March

2009

Costello v. United States, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, 5-6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 1999).

Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337

Harris v. Sheffield United Football Club Ltd [1988] QB 77

Joubert, David J. (1996). Agency and Stipulato Alteri, Southern Cross: Civil Law and Common

Law in South Africa, eds. Reinhard Zimmerman & Daniel Visser. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pp. 356

Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22

Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760; [1970] 1 WLR 1211; CA

Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v. Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2QB

711

Partridge v, Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204

Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) UKHL 1

Tuberville v. Savage (1669) 86 ER 684