Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
explain the four elements of a contract
Elements Of Contract essay
Elements Of Contract essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: explain the four elements of a contract
punitive or exemplary damages and liquidated damages– and/ or equitable remedies that involve something other than money, such as specific performance, rescission, and restitution. 2. Please discuss the purpose, elements and reasoning for each of the capacity to contract categories, Incapacity, Intoxication, Infancy or Minor, Fraud and Duress. 25 points • Incapacity Recalled that a contract has four elements, those are offer and acceptance, considerations, legal capacity and legal purpose. In the contract, each party should have freely willing into a binding agreement, asses the contract terms in their best interests, understand performances required from them and able to perform accordingly and the consequences of underperforming. Therefore, legal capability becomes one of the essential elements of the contract. Some categories of people have been regarded by the law as being incapable of preserving their own interests, including minors and people with impaired mental capacity. In practice, the contract law may work for the benefit of people with impaired decision-making ability. A party without a mental capacity to contract, but not adjudicated insane could avoid the contract or defend the contract lawsuit because of breaching the contract, on the ground of lack of mental capacity. A party is declared to lack capacity to contract if he or she could not understand the rights under the contract, the purpose and the legal effect of the contract. Temporarily or permanently incapacitated people include minors, mental incompetents, intoxicated people and drug addicts. The contracts create before a person is adjudged incompetent are voidable. However, in case the parties enter into the contract after ... ... middle of paper ... ...air dealing. Generally, this duty arises when one party knows a material of fact and the other party does not know about it. In order to correct a prior misrepresentation. o Justifiable reliance on the representation. A party must reasonably believe the truth of the statement and must act on it. No duty to investigate extraordinarily of the statement’s accuracy. o Injury caused by such reliance The injured party should offer proof of resulting damage in order to prevail. The plaintiff may seek to recover damages using one of these two theories: “Benefit of the bargain theory” and look for the difference value between the actual market value of what the plaintiff received and the value if the plaintiff had received what was represented. “Out-of-pocket” theory and collect the difference between the actual value what was received and the price of the purchase.
Damages in the United States include two categories. Compensatory damages are intended to compensate for the plaintiff’s loss. Punitive damages, on the contrary, are meant to punish the defendant .The punitive damages exceed the plaintiff’s loss, to dissuade the defendant from any further wrongdoings. For instance, having a company pay significant punitive damages may encourage it to greater caution. Another difference between the two categories is the money involved. If the damages are compensatory, the money usually goes entirely to the plaintiff, but if they are punitive, part of the money goes to the law firm and part to the plaintiff.
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
If a breach of contract is both material and opportunistic, the injured promisee has a claim in restitution to the profit realized by the defaulting promisor as a result of the breach. Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.
The four elements to a contract are an offer, an acceptance, an intention to create a legal relationship, and a consideration (usually money). The first and second element of a contract is the agreement, which is made up of an offer and an acceptance of a contract. The elements of an offer are (1) serious intent
-Court must be convinced that failure to comply with an agreement will lead to one of the parties to suffer prejudice. Court will protect innocent party, will provide remedy
Civil Liability has more than one source. There are two sources of liabilities, civil wrong and unjust enrichment. But most importantly civil liability is to be responsible for debts or wrongdoing against another private party (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.html). A Civil Wrong could arise from three different acts. It could arise from personal acts, acts of another, and from things. But, my main focus is personal acts. All these acts are considered as a civil wrong which is an action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract (http://thelawdictionary.org/civil-wrong/). In order to prove that a person is liable for that certain act we should analyze the civil wrong elements which are , wrong, damage, and causation. A The second source of liability is unjust enrichment which is benefiting from the action or property of another without legal justification (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/U/UnjustEnrichment.aspx).Unjust Enrichment could arise from a payment not due and a voluntary agency. Unjust Enrichment includes three elements which are loss, benefit, and no legal justification. Both liabilities have different understandings and have different aspects in viewing a case.
A tort is considered to be a civil wrong from which injury occurs to another person whether it is intentional or accidental. For such an offense, monetary value is the usual form of remedy. A classification of torts is that of negligence. “The tort of negligence allocates rights to individuals who have suffered damage, to their property or themselves, against a party that has failed to take reasonable care for that person’s safety” (Adams 2008). For an individual to have a successful claim in the tort of negligence, there must be proof of the duty of care, failure to perform that duty and damage suffered. Duty of care means that the claimant should show that the defendant should have thought about them (the claimant)
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);
Battery and assault fall under the law of tort, which is an amalgamation of obligations, rights,
Where compensation takes the form of a monetary award, it adequately satisfies the plaintiff for any financial harm caused . For example...
The way in which liability is determined seems to be an irony in itself. The civil law requires people to act with reasonable care, meaning not hurting others or damaging property. Also it requires the defendant to do what a reasonable person would have done. (Cannell) However, my question is, if a person is not using a reasonable mind then isn’t that person insane or otherwise mentally handicapped?
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...
Damages – if the other party cause’s drastic damages that cost the other party or affect it negatively than the other party can sue and take them to court of law, and the court may claim that the affected party may be paid and be taken back to its original position as it was
Explain the importance of the essential elements required for the formation of a valid contract.
A valid contract is an agreement including promises made between two or more parties with an intention of certain legal rights and legal responsibility that are enforceable. For there to be a contract – that must contain four essential elements- offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations and consideration.