Project on Business Law PDF
Added on 2022-08-20
12 Pages3206 Words16 Views
|
|
|
Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
BUSINESS LAW1
Question 1
a) The development of the common law was done by the Royal Courts of England. The
common law originated during the Norman invasion of the nation of England. The
Normans introduced the structure of common law. It is considered to be a body relating
to laws that is grounded on customs and precedents or the judicial decisions forwarded by
the courts in previous cases. Common law is not based on the statutory laws. The primary
objective for accepting and implementing this particular type of law is for having a
projected, calculable and conceivable outcome or consequence in relation to specific
activities. This law assures and confirms a uniform, undeviating and consistent
application regarding the law in relation to circumstances that are similar and identical. It
is grounded on the standard and belief that if similar facts or circumstances are treated
differently in numerous occasions, then it shall be considered to be unjust and unfair.
Common law generally delivers monetary damages (McFarlane 2019).
It was during the Middle Age of England when the notion regarding equity was
established. It was developed in order to supplement the stringent series of laws or rules
that were deliberated to be rough while applying to specific cases. It is considered to be a
body relating to standards and principles that promotes fairness and equality. It adheres to
the natural law. When decisions in relation to specific cases were regarded as unfair and
unjust, then the defendant appealed to the Ruler or King of the kingdom of England, who
afterwards passed on and substituted the duty towards the chancellor. The chancellors of
the early times were the clergymen and the nobles. However, after the time period of the
17th century, only the lawyers were selected to be the chancellors. Equity permits the
courts to make an application of justice grounded on the natural law and as per their
Question 1
a) The development of the common law was done by the Royal Courts of England. The
common law originated during the Norman invasion of the nation of England. The
Normans introduced the structure of common law. It is considered to be a body relating
to laws that is grounded on customs and precedents or the judicial decisions forwarded by
the courts in previous cases. Common law is not based on the statutory laws. The primary
objective for accepting and implementing this particular type of law is for having a
projected, calculable and conceivable outcome or consequence in relation to specific
activities. This law assures and confirms a uniform, undeviating and consistent
application regarding the law in relation to circumstances that are similar and identical. It
is grounded on the standard and belief that if similar facts or circumstances are treated
differently in numerous occasions, then it shall be considered to be unjust and unfair.
Common law generally delivers monetary damages (McFarlane 2019).
It was during the Middle Age of England when the notion regarding equity was
established. It was developed in order to supplement the stringent series of laws or rules
that were deliberated to be rough while applying to specific cases. It is considered to be a
body relating to standards and principles that promotes fairness and equality. It adheres to
the natural law. When decisions in relation to specific cases were regarded as unfair and
unjust, then the defendant appealed to the Ruler or King of the kingdom of England, who
afterwards passed on and substituted the duty towards the chancellor. The chancellors of
the early times were the clergymen and the nobles. However, after the time period of the
17th century, only the lawyers were selected to be the chancellors. Equity permits the
courts to make an application of justice grounded on the natural law and as per their
BUSINESS LAW2
discretion. At any time when there might be a disagreement in relation to the application
regarding common law, the application of equity is done. Equity generally forwards a
decree demanding that any individual should or should not act in relation to a specific
matter (Goldberg, Smith and Turner 2019).
b) An offer and the clear acceptance of that offer are considered to be the most substantial
part in relation to the law of contract. It helps to determine that whether or not a contract
has been established between two parties. The Postal rules were established in the form
of an exception in relation to the normal rules concerning ‘offer and acceptance’. As per
the general rules relating to ‘offer and acceptance’, an acceptance shall be considered to
be effective when it is communicated from the side of the offeree in favor of the offeror.
However, as per the postal rule in connection to a contract, the acceptance relating to an
offer shall be considered to be effective, when a specific letter to that regard is posted.
Postal rule is primarily applicable in case of distant communication (Kumarage 2016).
The postal rule was initially established in the case of Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald
681. In this case, it was stated that as per the postal rule, if a post is being utilized as a
method for communicating acceptance in relation to a specific offer, then the acceptance
shall be regarded as completed as soon as it has been posted. This rule was affirmed in
the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27. Presently, the postal rule applies to
technology such as emails, fax and online message.
The exceptions in relation to the postal rule are as follows:-
In Re London & Northern Bank, ex p. Jones [1900] 1 Ch 220, it was said that
postal rule shall not be applicable in a situation where the letter relating to the
acceptance is not posted in a proper manner.
discretion. At any time when there might be a disagreement in relation to the application
regarding common law, the application of equity is done. Equity generally forwards a
decree demanding that any individual should or should not act in relation to a specific
matter (Goldberg, Smith and Turner 2019).
b) An offer and the clear acceptance of that offer are considered to be the most substantial
part in relation to the law of contract. It helps to determine that whether or not a contract
has been established between two parties. The Postal rules were established in the form
of an exception in relation to the normal rules concerning ‘offer and acceptance’. As per
the general rules relating to ‘offer and acceptance’, an acceptance shall be considered to
be effective when it is communicated from the side of the offeree in favor of the offeror.
However, as per the postal rule in connection to a contract, the acceptance relating to an
offer shall be considered to be effective, when a specific letter to that regard is posted.
Postal rule is primarily applicable in case of distant communication (Kumarage 2016).
The postal rule was initially established in the case of Adam v Lindsell [1818] B & Ald
681. In this case, it was stated that as per the postal rule, if a post is being utilized as a
method for communicating acceptance in relation to a specific offer, then the acceptance
shall be regarded as completed as soon as it has been posted. This rule was affirmed in
the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27. Presently, the postal rule applies to
technology such as emails, fax and online message.
The exceptions in relation to the postal rule are as follows:-
In Re London & Northern Bank, ex p. Jones [1900] 1 Ch 220, it was said that
postal rule shall not be applicable in a situation where the letter relating to the
acceptance is not posted in a proper manner.
BUSINESS LAW3
Postal rule shall not be applicable in a situation where the letter has not been
addressed in a proper manner.
In Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27, it was said that postal rule shall not be
applicable where the post is not regarded as the normal method relating to
communication.
In Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155, it was stated that the postal
rule shall not be applicable in a situation where it has been expressly mentioned in
the terms relating to offer that postal rule shall be excluded, that is, the acceptance
should reach the offeror.
In Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155, it was also said that postal
rule shall not be applicable where it might create a ‘manifest inconvenience or
absurdity’.
c) The case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
shall be regarded as an important case in relation to part payment and when it may be
considered to be a good consideration. In the High Trees case, it was affirmed that as per
the doctrine relating to promissory estoppel, the part payment regarding a debt shall be
enforceable to its fullest satisfaction. Hence, when the plaintiff shall not seek or pursue
the entire amount relating to the debt and promise to receive the part payment regarding
the debt is forwarded by the plaintiff towards the defendant, then as per the doctrine
relating to promissory estoppel, part payment by the debtor shall be considered to be
good consideration. In the case of Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA
Civ 1329, a reasoning was forwarded as to why part payment should be considered as
good consideration.
Postal rule shall not be applicable in a situation where the letter has not been
addressed in a proper manner.
In Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27, it was said that postal rule shall not be
applicable where the post is not regarded as the normal method relating to
communication.
In Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155, it was stated that the postal
rule shall not be applicable in a situation where it has been expressly mentioned in
the terms relating to offer that postal rule shall be excluded, that is, the acceptance
should reach the offeror.
In Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155, it was also said that postal
rule shall not be applicable where it might create a ‘manifest inconvenience or
absurdity’.
c) The case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
shall be regarded as an important case in relation to part payment and when it may be
considered to be a good consideration. In the High Trees case, it was affirmed that as per
the doctrine relating to promissory estoppel, the part payment regarding a debt shall be
enforceable to its fullest satisfaction. Hence, when the plaintiff shall not seek or pursue
the entire amount relating to the debt and promise to receive the part payment regarding
the debt is forwarded by the plaintiff towards the defendant, then as per the doctrine
relating to promissory estoppel, part payment by the debtor shall be considered to be
good consideration. In the case of Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA
Civ 1329, a reasoning was forwarded as to why part payment should be considered as
good consideration.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents