The corporation and contract law
Added on 2022-09-16
12 Pages2320 Words18 Views
CORPORATION AND
CONTRACT LAW
Essential Elements of a Valid Contract and Effects of
Incorporation of a Company
CONTRACT LAW
Essential Elements of a Valid Contract and Effects of
Incorporation of a Company
CONTRACT LAW ISSUE
Whether there is any valid contract being created having the
authority of being enforced by Forthryt.
Whether any exact point of time can be spotted with respect to the
creation of the contract.
Whether there is any valid contract being created having the
authority of being enforced by Forthryt.
Whether any exact point of time can be spotted with respect to the
creation of the contract.
CONTRACT LAW RULE
Contract will only be have the status of validity, if the same has been created by an individual with adherence
to all the requisites a valid contract under common law. This requires an offer made by one of the parties and
the same being accepted by another with view of indulging into a relationship of legal value.
The adherence to the requisites of a valid contract for the purpose of creation of an enforceable contract has
been laid down in the principles established in
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597. The mentioned requisites
of an enforceable contract includes offer along with acceptance, intention of making legal relation,
consideration, capacity of the parties and lawfulness of the subject matter.
The most significant part of the creation of an enforceable contract lies with the valid institution of an offer
being extended with the consent of the other party towards the same effecting an acceptance of valid nature.
In all the endeavours undertaken by the individuals involved in the institution of a valid contract, the party
should always base their decisions upon the contention of laying down the foundation of legal relationship
between them by enumerating the terms of the contract, which are unambiguous and having clarity. This
comes in line with the proceeding of
Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6.
Social agreements will not amount to a valid contract and a clear intention of creating a legal relation is to be
displayed in the arrangement of the institution of the contract. This can be illustrated with the case of
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975. While accepting an offer the party involved needs to address all the terms
belonging to the offer and accept all of it. All terms of the offer should be disagreed upon by the person
accepting as per the provisions enumerated in the proceeding of
Powell v Lee (1908) 99 L.T. 284.
The acceptance should be in adherence to the terms of the offer made and any e alteration that the party
accepting brings about while accepting the offer needy to be treated as a counter offer as has been
contended in the case of
Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334. It has also been held in this case that a counter
offer needs to be e accepted for the purpose of being rendered as a valid contract.
Acceptance is said to be communicated as soon as the same has been posted as per the postal rule involved
with the case of
Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681.
Contract will only be have the status of validity, if the same has been created by an individual with adherence
to all the requisites a valid contract under common law. This requires an offer made by one of the parties and
the same being accepted by another with view of indulging into a relationship of legal value.
The adherence to the requisites of a valid contract for the purpose of creation of an enforceable contract has
been laid down in the principles established in
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597. The mentioned requisites
of an enforceable contract includes offer along with acceptance, intention of making legal relation,
consideration, capacity of the parties and lawfulness of the subject matter.
The most significant part of the creation of an enforceable contract lies with the valid institution of an offer
being extended with the consent of the other party towards the same effecting an acceptance of valid nature.
In all the endeavours undertaken by the individuals involved in the institution of a valid contract, the party
should always base their decisions upon the contention of laying down the foundation of legal relationship
between them by enumerating the terms of the contract, which are unambiguous and having clarity. This
comes in line with the proceeding of
Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA Civ 6.
Social agreements will not amount to a valid contract and a clear intention of creating a legal relation is to be
displayed in the arrangement of the institution of the contract. This can be illustrated with the case of
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975. While accepting an offer the party involved needs to address all the terms
belonging to the offer and accept all of it. All terms of the offer should be disagreed upon by the person
accepting as per the provisions enumerated in the proceeding of
Powell v Lee (1908) 99 L.T. 284.
The acceptance should be in adherence to the terms of the offer made and any e alteration that the party
accepting brings about while accepting the offer needy to be treated as a counter offer as has been
contended in the case of
Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334. It has also been held in this case that a counter
offer needs to be e accepted for the purpose of being rendered as a valid contract.
Acceptance is said to be communicated as soon as the same has been posted as per the postal rule involved
with the case of
Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681.
CONTRACT LAW APPLICATION
It has been made evident with the facts of the given scenario that Forthryt was not satisfied by
the treatment given by Metro Publishers during the first publication his book and has been
desiring to have another publisher to publish his second book. He had a meeting with Boswold
who has been involved in the publishing business in the month of February where he has
displayed his willingness to see the publication of the second book to Boswold for a price of
40000 dollars. Boswold contented the price to be reasonable. This depicts more of an
agreement than that of a contract as the arrangement under which the agreement has been
arrived upon seems like a agreement of social nature which is not enough to give rise to a valid
contract as per the principles coming in line with the decision of
Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA
Civ 6.
At the time when Metro Publishers wanted to purchase the rights of publishing his second book,
Forthryt exclaimed that he will sell the book to the individual who will offer him the highest
payment. This should be treated as a invitation for the purpose of making a valid offer and
should not be construed as an offer in itself. Again, there has been an offer made by Metro
Publisher against this invitation for $50,000. However against the offer Forthryt exclaim to
consider the same and did not readily accepted the offer. Hence, no contract has been created
as per the acceptance requirement enumerated in the decision of
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1
WLR 975.
It has been made evident with the facts of the given scenario that Forthryt was not satisfied by
the treatment given by Metro Publishers during the first publication his book and has been
desiring to have another publisher to publish his second book. He had a meeting with Boswold
who has been involved in the publishing business in the month of February where he has
displayed his willingness to see the publication of the second book to Boswold for a price of
40000 dollars. Boswold contented the price to be reasonable. This depicts more of an
agreement than that of a contract as the arrangement under which the agreement has been
arrived upon seems like a agreement of social nature which is not enough to give rise to a valid
contract as per the principles coming in line with the decision of
Merritt v Merritt [1970] EWCA
Civ 6.
At the time when Metro Publishers wanted to purchase the rights of publishing his second book,
Forthryt exclaimed that he will sell the book to the individual who will offer him the highest
payment. This should be treated as a invitation for the purpose of making a valid offer and
should not be construed as an offer in itself. Again, there has been an offer made by Metro
Publisher against this invitation for $50,000. However against the offer Forthryt exclaim to
consider the same and did not readily accepted the offer. Hence, no contract has been created
as per the acceptance requirement enumerated in the decision of
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1
WLR 975.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Rule Contract will only be have the status of validitylg...
|9
|2272
|13
Instant Scenario Presentation 2022lg...
|7
|2307
|17
Contract and Corporations Law Issues 2022lg...
|10
|2448
|12
Business Law Appleson v Littlewoods Issue 2022lg...
|9
|2458
|28
LEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF AN AGREEMENT.lg...
|15
|1008
|83
Issues about Business Law 2022lg...
|9
|2530
|19