Capacity to Contract Analysis: Glasgow City Council v Dahhan

The assignment provides an in-depth analysis of the capacity to contract case study, Glasgow City Council v Dahhan (UKEATS/0024/15/JW). It examines the arguments presented by both the defendant's counsel, Mr. Naiper QC, and the employment tribunal judge. The document also discusses the implications of the decision and raises questions about the validity of contracts entered into by parties lacking capacity to contract.

CPACITY TO
CONTRACT
Analysis of Glasgow City Council V
Dahhan UKEATS/0024/15/JW

Capacity to contract is defined as the ability to
enter into a contract.
The law says that anyone entering into a
contract should have the capacity to
enter into
the contract otherwise the contract will be
termed voidable.

ARGUMENT FOR THE
DEFENDANT
 Mr. Naiper, QC – It was held by him
that the best way to resolve a conflict is
by entering into a settlement
agreement.
 This was decided keeping in mind
that there was an instance of lack
of capacity to enter into the
contract.
 He argued that no law should
develop in cases of lack of capacity
to contract.

..CONTINUED
 The argument in favour of the appellant
was that the Employment Appeal
Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with
cases of capacity because it had a wider
ambit.
 The judgment proved the point that a
contract will not be considered to be
valid if the person entering into it does
not make the capacity to contract

..CONTINUED
 Another important argument in that the
employment tribunal judge erred in
giving the judgment.
 There was a mistake with regards to
understanding the capacity to contract
in the light of common law.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
DECISION
 If it is found that the parties did not
have the capacity to contract, that
means it is a voidable case and should
be dismissed.
 The question can be raised as to why
the parties entered into the contract
knowing very well they did not have the
capacity to contract.

..CONTINUED
 The appeal preferred against the
decision of the Employment Tribunal
does not hold value.
 The first decision was made according
to the situation by the judge and that
would have been beneficial for both the
parties.

THANK YOU