Contractual Claims Analysis

This assignment provides a thorough examination of contractual claims between Nick and several parties, including the Police and Ian. The analysis considers relevant laws and precedents, such as Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council, Hartley v Ponsonby, Kleinwort Benson Ltd V Malaysia Mining Corporation Bhd, Tweddle v Atkinson, White v Bluett, to determine the existence of contractual claims in each case.

Running head: CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
Contractual Claims
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
a) Nick and John:
Issue:
The issue is that whether there is any contractual claim between Nick and John.
Law:
According to the law of contract when there is no intention on the part of both the parties
to create legal relations, then the agreement would be made in such a way that parties may not
have equal consent. However, in order to enter into a valid contract both the parties should have
consent minds. There must be an intention to bind them to the agreement of the contract. In
Tweddle V Atkinson1 it was held that there were contractual claims between the promisor and
promise however, the consideration was from the part of the promise. In Hartley V
Ponsonby2 it was observed that the sea captains refused to pay the sailors an extra amount at
the end of the journey. It was observed that there was agreement of the captain to provide extra
amount was not legally binding.
Application:
In the present case it can be observed that Nick had a contract with John where he
promised to pay him $5,000 for catering facilities. However, later at the end minute he decided
to pay him a bonus of $1,000. Therefore, it can be stated that when John decided to pay Nick
the bonus amount of $1,000 and therefore at that time no contract was formed between the
parties.
Conclusion:
It can be stated that there is no contractual claim between Nick and John regarding the
payment of Bonus of $1,000.
b) Nick and the Police:
Issue:
The issue is that whether there is any contractual claim between Nick and the Police.
Law:
1 (1861) 1 B&S 393.
2 [1857] 26 LJ QB 322.

2CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
In Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan3 it was observed a colliery asked the Police to
provide for protection during strike. However, the police did not have enough resources to
support the rally and had sent his constables to the construction site. The colliery refused to pay
the police the decided amount as the police acted beyond the statutory requirements. It was
held that the payment could be claimed as there was a performance of statutory duty.
Application:
In the present situation it can be observed that Nick has requested for police protection
in the rally and for that he agreed to pay $3,000 to them. It was observed that the rally was
successful and the police performed their duties. However Nick refused to pay the agreed
amount to the police. Therefore, the police authorities can claim the amount as they have
performed their statutory duties.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that contractual claim exists between Nick and the Police.
c) Nick and Hanson:
Issue:
The issue in this case is that whether there was any contractual claim between Nick and
Hanson.
Law:
According to the law of contract it is important the contract must have some
consideration. Without the presence of consideration the contract cannot be termed as a valid
contract. It is noteworthy to mention here that considerations are not solely based on
sentimental or emotional values. It is important that consideration must be given in return.
However, it is important that there shall be an existence of promise. In this regard, it is worth
mentioning that when something is done by one party for another for a valid reason other than
any legal promise, then such duty shall not be held to be a valid consideration. In White V.
Bluett4 it was held that the promise was not sufficient to declare the consideration to be a valid
one.
3 [1924] UKHL 3.
4 (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36.

3CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
Application:
In the present case it can be observed that Hanson being a committed supporter of Nick
agreed to fly an aircraft over the rally for free. After the successful completion of the rally
Hanson in order to cover his anticipated costs wanted Nick to compensate his dues. However,
Nick suddenly disagrees to compensate. Therefore, it can be stated that from the very
beginning there was no contractual consideration between Nick and Hanson as Hanson
promised to work for him free of charge.
Conclusion:
It can be finally concluded that there exists no contractual claim between Nick and
Hanson.
d) Nick and Ian:
Issue:
The issue in the present section is that whether there is any contractual claim between
Nick and Ian.
Law:
According to the law of contract in case of any commercial or business relations, there is
an intention on the part of the parties to bind themselves legally to the terms of the contract. In
Kleinwort Benson Ltd V Malaysia Mining Corporation Bhd5 it was observed that the bank to
pay a loan amount to MMC Metals. However, no guarantee was provided by MMC at the time of
accepting the loan. In this regard, higher rate of interest was charged by the bank and in such
process with an collapse of market the company has undergone liquidation. In this case the
bank tried to claim the balanced loaned from MNC. However, it was ruled by the Court that
there was no intention in this case which would legally bind both the parties to the contract. It
can be observed that at the time of offering the loan no guarantee was made by MCC which
indicated that there could be no future intention.
It can be mentioned that where there is no intention to create legal relations, the
contracting parties do not legally bind themselves to the contract. In this regard, the contract is
declared to be enforceable. However, in case when there is no intention on the part of the
5 (MMC BHD) [1989] 1 WLR 379.

4CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
parties to legally bind them to contract, the contract becomes a mere promise. It is worth noting
that without an intention to create legal relations, it will make the contract void.
Application:
In the present scenario, it can be observed that Ian agreed to provide a sum of $10,000
to Nick in order to deal with the expenses in writing. Therefore it can be stated that there was an
existence of valid contract and the both the parties were legally binding on it.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion it can be stated that there was contractual claim between Nick and Ian.

5CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
References:
Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v Glamorgan County Council [1924] UKHL 3.
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322.
Kleinwort Benson (KB) v Malaysia Mining Corporation BHD (MMC BHD) [1989] 1 WLR 379.
Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B&S 393.
White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36.