University Law Assignment: Contract Law and Remedies

This document provides comprehensive answers to a law assignment focusing on various aspects of contract law. It addresses different scenarios involving breach of contract, including the awarding of damages (liquidated and punitive), and the concept of unfair contract terms, referencing case law like Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd. The assignment explores the validity of contract terms, the implications of changes to contract terms with and without mutual agreement, and the essential elements for contract formation, such as offer and acceptance. Furthermore, it covers remedies available in case of breach, like specific performance and damages, and delves into issues of unilateral mistake, misrepresentation, and the necessity of intention to create legal relations for a contract to be valid. The document utilizes relevant case laws to support its arguments and provides references for further reading.

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Answer 1
If any breach in context of contract occurs, parties to the contract have number of remedies and
one remedy is award of damages. As per this remedy, damages are awarded by the Court for the
purpose of compensate the injured party in the contract. Damages can be in the form of
liquidated damages which means particular sum stated in the contract to settle the breach.
In other words, court awarded the monetary damages under which party who suffer loss or injury
get compensation for their loss, and to put them in similar place in which parties have been if
contract is performed. However, court can also order punitive damages for the purpose of
punishing the party who breach the contract. In this case, court award the damages to the
Granger for loss suffered by Granger in late delivery of the computers and Court can also order
punitive damages (GAR, n.d.). Therefore, court can award damages for $1500 as stated in the
contract.
Answer 2
Unfair contracts terms are those specific terms of the contract which are harsh, unconscionable,
and one sided profitable. These terms usually limits the general principles of enforceability of
governing contracts which holds that contract must be enforced only if these contracts are freely
made. This can be understood through case law Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd, and this case is
considered as classic example of cancelation of contract on the basis of unfair terms. Term is
considered as unfair if such term is harsh on one party and provides one side benefit to other
party, and such term is not necessary for the execution of the contract (BCLI, 2005).

Law 3
In the present case, Janie is not bound with the term because this term is unfair in nature and
cause one side benefit to one party. However, this term is not necessary for the execution of
contract.
Answer 3
If contract is formed, as per the legal requirement than such contract is binding on the parties. In
other words, terms stated under the contract at the time of formulation of contract is binding on
the parties and if such terms are not fulfilled by the parties then it is considered as breach of
contract. There are two types of terms that are express terms and implied terms. Express terms
are those terms which are clearly stated in the contract and implied terms are those which are
introduced by law.
If any changes occurred in the terms of the contract then such changes are considered as valid
contract only if such changes are agreed by both the parties, but if those changes are not agreed
by both the parties then such changes are not considered as valid changes and not binding on the
parties. In other words, if changes are occurred with the permission of both the parties then it is
not possible for parties to deny these changes in future, if parties deny the changes in the future
then it is considered as breach of contract.
In the present case, both the parties agreed to change the price of the contract but later Gordo
deny to accept the changed price which means he breach the contract. As stated above, if any
changes occurred in the terms of the contract then such changes are considered as valid contract
only if such changes are agreed by both the parties. Therefore, Gordon has no right to demand
further $10000 as contract price. Annette is not bound to pay $10000 to Gordo.
Answer 4

Law 4
For valid contract there must be agreement between the parties and agreement consists following
two factors:
Offer- offer is the communication through which offferor promise to do something if offeree
does something.
Acceptance- acceptance is the statement through which offeree accepts the offer of offeror.
If valid contract is exists between the parties then parties are bound to the contract and if any
parties does not fulfill its obligations under the contract then it is considered as breach of
contract. Following remedies are available in case of breach of contract:
Specific performance- party can seek specific performance under which party who breach the
contract perform its obligations under the contract.
Damages- court awarded the monetary damages under which party who suffer loss or injury get
compensation for their loss, and to put them in similar place in which parties have been if
contract is performed.
Marion can seek following remedies if contract is breached by other party.
Answer 5
For this question option b is right which states that Sherwin's father would be the proper plaintiff
in this action and could win for breach of contract because he made known the purpose for which
he wanted the goods and the goods were not fit for the purpose.
Answer 6

Law 5
In this provisions of unilateral mistake will applied which states that, unilateral mistake will
occur when only one party is mistaken related to the subject matter of the contract. There is no
remedy available in case of unilateral mistake. In other words, if only one party is mistaken then
it is not possible to rescind the contract on the basis of unilateral mistake. However, there is an
exception to this rule which states that remedy is available to the mistaken party if another party
acted unconscionably. In other words, if another party to the contract makes any improper
conduct such as it prevent the other party on being know about the mistake then only mistaken
party can seek remedy otherwise no remedy is available to party. Therefore, in such case
mistaken party has right to cancel the contract.
This can be understood through case law Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422. In this case,
Court confirm the principle that if another party to the contract makes any improper conduct
such as it prevent the other party on being know about the mistake then only mistaken party can
seek remedy otherwise no remedy is available to party.
In the present case, buyer is mistaken about the manufacturing year of the Guitar which means
there is clear case of unilateral mistake, but in this case there is no improper conduct on the part
of seller. Therefore, buyer of guitar has no right to seek remedy from seller.
Answer 7
If any person enters into contract on the basis of false representation then such contract is void.
However, it must be noted that if case involves third party then law protected the interest of third
party which means if any person enter into contract with third party and such party acted in good
faith then contract between them is valid contract. For example- A stole watch of B and sell that

Law 6
watch to C. in this case contract between A and C is valid as it involves good faith. Party who
suffer damages has right to file claim against the person who misrepresents the fact.
In the present case, Mower sold to John is considered as valid contract because john acted in
good faith, but other person has right to file claim against the seller.
Answer 8
For the contract to be valid there must be intention to create legal relations at the time of
formation of contract. If parties do not intend to create legal relations at the time of formation
then there is no valid contract. Intention is determined by Court through the presence of
consideration. In other words, consideration is the best evidence which proves that parties intend
to create legal relations. In the present case, buyer offer to purchase the car for $3000 which
means offeror intends to purchase car in $3000, and same was accepted by Jimmy the Joker. In
this case, there is consideration which can be considered as best evidence to proof that both the
parties intended to create legal relations.

Law 7
References:
Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422.
CO, (2010). Business Contracts 101: What Canadian Businesses Need to Know. Viewed at:
http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/june2010/business_contracts.html. Accessed on 14th October
2017.
GAR, Assessing Damages for Breach of Contract. Viewed at:
http://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1076548/assessing-damages-for-breach-of-contract.
Accessed on 14th October 2017.
Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd, (1965) 54 W.W.R. 257, 55 D.L.R. (2d) 710 (B.C.C.A.).
BCLI, (2005). Unfair Contract Terms: An Interim Report. Viewed at:
http://www.bcli.org/sites/default/files/Unfair_Contract_Terms_Interim_Rep.pdf. Accessed on
13th October 2017.