Bank Crime and Contractual Obligations
Added on 2020-02-24
7 Pages1941 Words319 Views
|
|
|
Running head: MPA1MPAName:Institutional Affiliation:
MPA2MPAThe Case between Rahul and SauravThe case between Saurav and Rahul is about two friends whereby Mr. Saurav intends to buy a plane from Mr. Rahul. Rahul agreed to sell the plane to Saurav so that he may purchase a newer one. Saurav promised to pay for the plane after ten days. Because of the surety from Saurav, Rahul acquired a high interest loan and purchased the new plane. However, before the end of the ten days, Saurav pulled out of the agreement citing he has been advised by his tax accountant not to buy the plane as he is over committed on other commercial deals. Therefore, this paper examines the legal rights of Saurav in this case. Referring to the case scenario between Saurav and Rahul, it is evident that there was an oral contract. It is because Rahul provided an offer that Saurav accepted, meaning that he had an intention to buy the plane and agreed to it when he made a promise to perform his obligation within ten days. When a party failed to perform his obligation as per the contract, then he breaches the contract (Ganglmair, 2017). Breach of contract is a term that is used to describe a non-performance party in a contract. In this case, when Saurav agreed to the terms of the contract, but withdrew from it before performing his obligation, it can be said that he breached the contract between him and Rahul. Moreover, a valid contract must contain the element of consideration exchange in the agreement. Consideration may be money or something valuable (Walkley, 2016). It can also include interest, a right, or benefit. The parties involved must benefitin one way or the other. In this case Saurav was to get the plane while in return Rahul was to get money.
MPA3Moreover, for Saurav to withdraw from the agreement he needs to know that Rahul has legal rights to performance, right to damages, and fundamental breach among others. Under specific performance, Rahul can sue him by failing to perform his obligation as per the agreement (Atwell, 2015). It means that if the parties agreed to the terms as to performance of a contract, the court can enforce the said obligations as provided under commercial law. Rahul canalso claim for damages he incurred due to the agreement he entered into with Saurav. The compensation for such damages is supposed to take him back into the position he was in if he could have not entered into the contract. Other than that, Rahul still has the right under fundamental breach. Due to the situation the breach put him into, he can say that the breach substantially deprive him what he expected under the contract (Ganglmair, 2017). Therefore, for Saurav to be excused from the liabilities, he must prove that the breach was not foreseeable. The Case between a Guarantor and Australian BankFor many years there has been an increment litigation concerning the enforcement of the commercial guaranties by lenders. Due to the increase in defaulting by borrowers on their loan obligations, banks in many cases have taken action against guarantors for them to recover damages arising from the borrower’s default. Here is the case where an Australian bank is facing the same scenario. The case involves a mother who guaranteed her son’s loan business loan from the bank using her home. She signed the guarantors’ agreement based on the trust she has on her son. Being that she was not conversant with English, the bank advised her to seek an independent legal advice before an experienced, certified interpreter before signing any document that guarantees business loan to her son. In less than two years later, Ming’s business faced problems from a significant legal ruling that made his business to face insolvency.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents