logo

On the validity of the agreement signed between Tom and Susan

   

Added on  2020-03-16

10 Pages1901 Words196 Views
Running head: MANAGEMENT LAWManagement lawName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
On the validity of the agreement signed between Tom and Susan_1
1MANAGEMENT LAWAnswer to question no. 1Issue:The main issue of the case is whether the agreement signed between Tom and Susan wasvalid in nature or not. It has been observed in the case that prior to the marriage, Tom askedSusan to sign a document and the same contained certain terms and Susan put her signatureon the document. The conditions of the agreement were that if the marriage between the twohas broken, Susan will get only $100.000. After five years of happy conjugal life when themarriage was dissolved, Susan get the contracted money only and her husband denied to giveher other allowances.Rule:The subject matter of the case has attracted the provision of duress (Feldman 2015). It is aprovision under the contract law that attracts the grounds of cancellation of the enforceabilityof contractual obligations. It is a sort of defence. When a person forced to sign a contract andthe other party to the contract threat him to sign the same, the validity of the agreementbecomes unenforceable (Tamblyn 2017). Section 50 of the Australian Consumer Actdescribed the terms duress. The term duress is applicable when one party to a contract signedan agreement forcefully and threat had been generated by the other party. It has beenobserved in Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27 that Alexander had threatened Barton tokill him if he had not paid a certain amount of money. Privy Council cancelled the validity ofthe contract on the ground of duress. In Skeate v Beale [1840] 11 Ad & El 983, it wasobserved that the tenant became agree with the repayment when the landlord threatened tosell all his goods (Fried 2015).
On the validity of the agreement signed between Tom and Susan_2
2MANAGEMENT LAWApplication:In the present case, it has been observed that Tom had threatened Susan that if she did notsigned the agreement, he will not marry her. Therefore, it attracts the provision of threat,particularly mental threat. It has been observed that the circumstances compelled her to signthe agreement. One of the terms of the valid contract is free consent. In this case, there wasno free consent present on behalf of Susan.Conclusion:The agreement made between Tom and Susan will not be enforceable on the ground ofduress.Answer to question no. 2Issue:The main issue in the case is whether Steve is bound by law to buy the car from Jason. It hasbeen observed in this case that Steve was searching for a turbo engine car and Jason hadinstalled all the requirements of Steve and Steve told him that he will buy the car only afterthe fulfilment of all the requirements. It has been observed that Jason had installed all therequirements and still then, Steve was refused to buy the car.Rules:The subject matter of the case is attracting the provision of the promissory estoppels (Lee2015). According to this legal doctrine if a promise had been made to a person, it is notnecessary that should follow all the formal consideration and the promise maker has to keepthe same in case the promisee relied on the promise (Robertson 2014). Under the Australian
On the validity of the agreement signed between Tom and Susan_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Management Law | Assignment
|10
|1971
|37

Management Law- Assignment
|10
|1904
|49

LAWS20061 Case Study of Management Law
|12
|2019
|57

LAWS20061 Management Law | Case Study
|7
|1406
|52

The Australian Contract Law - Assignment
|8
|1351
|71

Assignment on Management Law - Doc
|12
|2376
|34