This document explains the rules and issues related to Contract Law. It discusses the different types of mistakes in contract law and the importance of consideration. It also provides an application of the rules to a case study. The subject is Contract Law and the document type is an essay.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: Contract Law CONTRACT LAW Name of the Student: Name of the University: Author Note:
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1Contract Law Answer: Issues: The issues that are to be decided in the present case study are as follows: Whether the contract is enforceable between Yono and Luke, Whether Yoko Ono could avoid the enforcement of the contract, Whether money is owed by the cable operator. Rules: A contract can be said to be a legally bound agreement that considers and recognizes the rights as well as duties of the parties that are part of such agreement. The contract is usually made with the intention of performing it. However, when a party infringed the terms of the contract, the deprived party may bring an action against that party who has caused the breach of the performance of the contract. But the party that has breached the contract may raise various defences in order to save himself from getting sued. In contract law, one of the vitiating factors is mistake. Mistake can be raised as a defence and when contested properly can result the contract being considered as voidable or void ab initio. In general, to form a valid defence for a contract breach, the mistake has to be made by all the parties to the contract. When the court considers a mistake, it will treat the contract as void ab initio such that the contract has never existed. However, when the contract turns voidable, the contract is effective unless the aggrieved party initiates an action for setting the contract aside. Hence, for a voidable contract, it is aggrieved party’s option set aside the contract. But for a
2Contract Law void contract, contract will be regarded as void even if the aggrieved party has not initiated suit for it. Another option left to the court other than considering the contract as void or voidable is that it can allow an equitable remedy to the aggrieved party. Mistake can be referred to as an erroneous understanding by one or more than one parties to such contract. There are mainly 3 kinds of mistakes in contract; unilateral contract, mutual contract and the common contract. Theunilateral mistakeis one where a party to the agreement is mistaken about the subject matter or terms of contract. Usually, a contract can be made voidable for the existence of a unilateral mistake if any of the following exists; when one of the parties relied on the statement made by other party regarding a fact which the second party knew or have known as mistaken by 1stparty. Similarly, a contract can be voidable when the mistake was very serious and unreasonable such that it is outrageous to the aggrieved party. Unilateral mistake can happen regarding the terms of the agreement of the contract as seen in the case ofHartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566where the court decided that the contract was void for mistake. In this case, the defendants by mistake made an offer of huge quantity of hare at price per pound instead of price per piece. Mistake of identity happens when one party claims something which is actually not present. Mutual mistake happens when both parties to the contract are under effects of mistake regarding a similar fact of the agreement. Though there was an incidence of minds of the parties but they have mistaken. So, such contract is voidable. However, if a reasonable man failed to understand the meaning, in such case, the contract will be considered void as seen inRaffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906. In this case, the parties created a contract for selling cotton to be sent from Bombay by means of ‘The Peerless’. The defendant assumed that it was sailing in
3Contract Law October and the claimant assumed it sailing in December. The court here used the objective test. It stated that it was void. Another kind refers to the common mistake in which both parties make same mistake. Such mistakes may occur regarding the contract’s subject matter, or when the goods belong to the buyer already or when there is a mistake regarding quality of any product. Mistake can be classified another way as the mistake of law or mistake of fact. for example, in the first type, the party creates a contract not having knowledge of the country, then such contract is said to be under effect of mistake, however, such contract is not void. The reason being that ignorance of law cannot be held as an excuse. On the other hand, when both the parties contract under mistake regarding the matter of fact significant to the agreement, such contract will be considered as void. One of the important elements of contract is consideration. In usual course, consideration has to be included during the time the contract is created. Past consideration is not considered in the contract. Past consideration refers to an act or promise which is performed or made before the contract is created as seen in the decision given inRe McArdle (1951) Ch 669. Thus past consideration has no value. Since it has moved from the promisee to the promisor, it cannot be considered as a basis when damages are claimed as seen inRoscorla v Thomas [1842] EWHC J74. However, there lies exception to general rule when there lies a duty owed to the 3rdparty. In order to consider this, three conditions are to be fulfilled as given inPao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17. They are; the act must be done by the promisee at the promisor’s request, the parties should have understood that the act has to be reimbursed either by making payments or by allowing some other benefits and that such payment or conferring benefit must be legally
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4Contract Law enforceable when it was promised before. Past consideration is valid when it is initiated by a request as seen inLampleigh v Braithwait [1916] EWHC KBJ 17. However, as perTweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B&S 393,no suit can succeed as stranger to the consideration cannot enforce any contract even though it was made for the benefit of that stranger. Further, it was held that promisee cannot sue unless consideration is made by him. Application: In the present case study, it is seen that Yoko Ono employs Luke Key to clear the storage building of his house. She was sure that there was nothing important in it as she had already checked it before assigning Luke to clear it. Further, she said that she did not care whatever is there as she did not need it anymore. Thus it is seen that Yono was confident that there was nothing important there. She had also gone through everything and nothing she found interesting to him. She further said if Luke found out some pictures or mementos belonging to John, it would act as compensation to his work to which Luke agreed. Thus there was a valid offer, its acceptance, consideration and legality of the agreement. Thus a valid contract is created as per theUniform Commercial Code. While on the cleaning process was going on, Luke discovered some tapes of John Lennon inside an old suitcase. He contacted a music broker who agreed to pay 5 million dollars for the rights of the tapes to him. He planned to seal the deal in the next week. However, when Yono came to know this she contacted with the lawyers and demanded the return of the tapes claiming that she did not know that there were original tapes in the building. Further, she said that she will be paying 1000 dollars for his efforts and not the tapes. This amounts to novation made by Yono to which Luke had not consented.
5Contract Law Luke did not agree to that offer and as a consequence, Yoko instituted a case against Luke to get back the tapes. Thus, she breached the contract by not letting Luke take the tapes that he got in the building. She sued on the mistake of fact. As per the provisions of contract, she can claim the defence of unilateral mistake for getting back the original tapes. But from the facts of the case, it is seen than there was no mistake on the part of Yono as she clearly mentioned it to Luke to take back everything from the building. She also said that she had seen all the things and none could make him interested. Further there was no mistake of law and mistake of fact only as per Yono. But the case facts did not support his claim. Hence, she cannot successfully claim the defence of mistake of fact. Further, Luke does not owe money to the cable operator as there was no contract between Luke and the cable operator. Further, past consideration cannot be considered in contract and this does not fall within the exceptions of the past consideration. Conclusion: Thus, from the a discussions made above, it can be inferred that The contract is enforceable between Yono and Luke, Yoko Ono cannot avoid the enforcement of the contract, Money is not owed by the cable operator by Luke.
6Contract Law References: Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566. Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906. Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669. Roscorla v Thomas [1842] EWHC J74. Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] UKPC 17. Lampleigh v Braithwait [1916] EWHC KBJ 17. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B&S 393. The Uniform Commercial Code.