Case Study on Legal Issues in Business Contracts and Consumer Law
Added on 2022-11-17
13 Pages2473 Words495 Views
|
|
|
Running Head: Case Study
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note
CASE STUDY1
PART A:
1:
Issue:
The issue in the case whether the legal intention to enter into contract was established
between Sally and Ethan.
Rules:
The doctrine to create legal intentions is a rule in the contract and forms one of the
essential elements for the determination of offer and acceptance between the parties. The
landmark case law for the determination of the intention of the parties to create the legal
intentions and abide by the terms of the contract in the course of such relationship1. The rule has
further been applied in modern cases to enhance the application of such precedent2.
There are two tests to establish the intention of the parties to create such legal intention:
The objective test: unlike the name suggests, the test is more of a subjective one and has
been one of the determining factors in the decision of cases3. It was held that the
contractual relationship is determined by the explicit acceptance or the discharge of
contractual duty. In cases where the unilateral agreement exists, the performance or
omission of the act as stated in the terms of the contract shall constitute the determination
of the intention.
1 Simpkins vs. Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975
2 Welch vs Jess [1976] NZ 185
3 Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
PART A:
1:
Issue:
The issue in the case whether the legal intention to enter into contract was established
between Sally and Ethan.
Rules:
The doctrine to create legal intentions is a rule in the contract and forms one of the
essential elements for the determination of offer and acceptance between the parties. The
landmark case law for the determination of the intention of the parties to create the legal
intentions and abide by the terms of the contract in the course of such relationship1. The rule has
further been applied in modern cases to enhance the application of such precedent2.
There are two tests to establish the intention of the parties to create such legal intention:
The objective test: unlike the name suggests, the test is more of a subjective one and has
been one of the determining factors in the decision of cases3. It was held that the
contractual relationship is determined by the explicit acceptance or the discharge of
contractual duty. In cases where the unilateral agreement exists, the performance or
omission of the act as stated in the terms of the contract shall constitute the determination
of the intention.
1 Simpkins vs. Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975
2 Welch vs Jess [1976] NZ 185
3 Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
CASE STUDY2
The rebuttable presumption: this rule establishes the determination based on the burden
of proof. As a general rule, the burden of proof is determined as the balance of
probabilities in case of civil of wring and beyond reasonable doubt in the case of criminal
wrongs. However, based on different assumptions, the rule establishes four types of
agreements which are family agreements having no contract4, social agreements where
the cases are decided on basis of objective test which depends upon the merits of the
case5, Commercial Agreements where a valid contract is presumed6 and lastly, Collective
agreements where it is presumed that no contract has been made7.
Application:
In the given scenario, the terms and conditions of the contract were discussed and the sale
was proceeded. Although they were family but with the applicability of the two tests, the
contract was firstly accepted and the family relationship is subject to legal consequences only if
the situation demands.
Conclusion:
Relying upon the case analysis8, it can be concluded that Sally and Ethan had the legal
intention to enter into contract.
4 Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
5 Coward v M.I.B. [1962] 1 All ER 531 CA
6 Rose & Frank v Crompton [1925] AC 445
7 Ford v A.U.E.F. [1969] 2 QB 303
8 Erington vs Wood [1951] EWCA Civ 2
The rebuttable presumption: this rule establishes the determination based on the burden
of proof. As a general rule, the burden of proof is determined as the balance of
probabilities in case of civil of wring and beyond reasonable doubt in the case of criminal
wrongs. However, based on different assumptions, the rule establishes four types of
agreements which are family agreements having no contract4, social agreements where
the cases are decided on basis of objective test which depends upon the merits of the
case5, Commercial Agreements where a valid contract is presumed6 and lastly, Collective
agreements where it is presumed that no contract has been made7.
Application:
In the given scenario, the terms and conditions of the contract were discussed and the sale
was proceeded. Although they were family but with the applicability of the two tests, the
contract was firstly accepted and the family relationship is subject to legal consequences only if
the situation demands.
Conclusion:
Relying upon the case analysis8, it can be concluded that Sally and Ethan had the legal
intention to enter into contract.
4 Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
5 Coward v M.I.B. [1962] 1 All ER 531 CA
6 Rose & Frank v Crompton [1925] AC 445
7 Ford v A.U.E.F. [1969] 2 QB 303
8 Erington vs Wood [1951] EWCA Civ 2
CASE STUDY3
2:
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Ethan would be rewarded against representations made
by Sally.
Rules:
The misrepresentation is the making of an untrue or misleading based on which the
plaintiff makes his or her decision. The main element of misrepresentation is that the misleading
statement made by the defendant should have induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract9.
However, there is a difference between the statement of opinion and the statement of
misrepresentations10. Thus, it is important that the statement and its nature being untrue should
originate from the defendant. And the misled party’s decision should entirely or majorly depend
upon the untrue statements as made by the defendant11.
As laid down in the case law12, the concept of fraudulent misrepresentation was
recognized and the three elements were established for its determination which includes:
Falsehood of the statement
Statement is not to be believed
The statement made is rash and nowhere even close to the truth
9 Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
10 Fitzpatrick v Michel [1928] NSWStRp 19, Supreme Court (NSW, Australia)
11 Edgington vs. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
12 Derry vs Peek [1889] UKHL 1
2:
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Ethan would be rewarded against representations made
by Sally.
Rules:
The misrepresentation is the making of an untrue or misleading based on which the
plaintiff makes his or her decision. The main element of misrepresentation is that the misleading
statement made by the defendant should have induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract9.
However, there is a difference between the statement of opinion and the statement of
misrepresentations10. Thus, it is important that the statement and its nature being untrue should
originate from the defendant. And the misled party’s decision should entirely or majorly depend
upon the untrue statements as made by the defendant11.
As laid down in the case law12, the concept of fraudulent misrepresentation was
recognized and the three elements were established for its determination which includes:
Falsehood of the statement
Statement is not to be believed
The statement made is rash and nowhere even close to the truth
9 Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
10 Fitzpatrick v Michel [1928] NSWStRp 19, Supreme Court (NSW, Australia)
11 Edgington vs. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
12 Derry vs Peek [1889] UKHL 1
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents