Business Law and Ethics Common Law Assignment

Added on - 21 Apr 2020

  • 12


  • 2718


  • 24


  • 0


Showing pages 1 to 4 of 12 pages
Business Law and EthicsCommon Law Assignment(Student Details: )
Business Law and EthicsQuestion 1IssueWhether the vegan leather being all-natural was a term of the contract drawn between Peter andAnimal-friendly Cobbler Supplies, or not?RuleA contract is defined as the legal validity holding agreement where party X promises that itwould pay consideration amount and party Y would be doing the task for which thecommunication is being paid. The terms of the contract give rise to the rights and responsibilitiesunder the contract. Where the terms covered under the contract are not upheld, the liability israised under the common law of contract law. Contract formation is not a simple task and beforethe formation of contract, negotiations take place for the same, which are often referred to aspuffs. These puffs are not deemed as contractual terms, for the lack of intent of the parties to bebound by such statements (Andrews, 2015).The main rule regarding the statements which are made before the contract is formed makesthem simply presentation, since the same are not reduced to writing expressly in the agreement.In the case ofBirch v Paramount Estates Ltd(1856) 16 EG 396, it was held by the court that theoral statements have to be deemed as the terms of enforceable contract but it is important to besure that the obligation of the parties have been carried out in the manner in which it has beenenvisioned. Thus, the fundamental rule have provided that the statements which have been madePage2
Business Law and Ethicsbefore the contract is formed, they can only be deemed as the term of the contract when theparties have such intent (Young, 2009).In the matter ofHeilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton[1913] AC 30, the court stated that for theintent of the parties, there was a need to hold theconsensus ad idem, which denotes the meetingof minds. The key reason for getting into the contract needs to be the making of such statement(World Library, 2017). A similar ruling had been given inBannerman v. White(1861) 10 CBNS844 where the court was of the view that the statement made needs to induce the parties of thecontract and there is a need for the decision to be made, after conceding to the agreement madeon the basis of the statement (E-Law Resources, 2017).ApplicationThe facts which have been given in this show that the statement which has been made by Peterwas in oral manner and the same cannot be taken as a term of the contract based onBirch vParamount Estates Ltdfor the reasons of the same being a major element of contract. There isalso a need for considering the intent of the parties as a result of which the agreement is formed,particularly when it had been clear that vegan leather had to be all natural and this had been amajor part of this case. The same had been properly agreed by Animal-friendly Cobbler Suppliesbased on the previous request as had been made by Peter and he had informed that the same wasthe preference of his clients. Peter would not have gone forward with this contract where therehad been a lack ofconsensus ad idembased on this term. Thus, it becomes very clear that theminds of the two parties had met in this case, along with the presence of intent between theparties, for deeming the statement made as a term of the contract.Page3
Business Law and EthicsConclusionTo conclude, the statement made by Peter to Animal-friendly Cobbler Supplies in the matter ofthe vegan leather being all-natural was a term of the contract.Question 2IssueWhether there an implied term in contract drawn between Peter and Samantha regarding theshoes to be made with all-natural vegan leather with no synthetic material/ingredients involved,or not?RuleThe contract law provides for the terms of the contract to be implied or express. A term isdeemed to be an implied term where the parties conceded to the same in an obvious manner,where the same had been brought properly before the parties’ attention when the negotiation forthe contract was taking place(Stone and Devenney, 2017). When such happens, there is a needto consider the viewpoint of a rational bystander; and the same had been provided in the matterofShirlaw v Southern Foundries[1939] 2 KB 206. The test given under this case provides thatthe term has to be taken as implied term in such cases only where a rational person would alsohold that the statement was obvious which can be deemed as a term which had been expressed(Marson and Ferris, 2015).In such cases, the business efficacy test is of help, which has been provided in the matter ofMoorcock(1889) 14 PD 64. In this case, it was provided that a particular term is to be taken asPage4
You’re reading a preview

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document