Valid Contract Between Two or More Parties
12 Pages2063 Words191 Views
Added on 2020-04-01
Valid Contract Between Two or More Parties
Added on 2020-04-01
ShareRelated Documents
Running Head: Law 1Law
Law2Part AIssue: Whether Marie and lame Duck entered into any contract?Law: Valid contract between two or more parties consist agreement, and valid agreement includes offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration. In other words, essential elements must be present be present for making the contract valid. These essential elements are stated below:Offer is considered as communication through which one party make promise to the otherparty to do something or refrain from doing something if other party does something or refrain from doing something. It is not necessary that offer can be made to single person only, but it can be made to the world at large. It must be noted that there is difference between invitation to deal and offer, and this difference can be understood through case law Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] EWCA Civ 6; [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 4271. Other essential element of contract is acceptance, and it is considered as statement through which offer given by offeror is accepted by offeree. It can be understood through case law Crown v Clarke, (1927) 40 CLR 2272. Consideration is considered as most important element of contract, and it is the price which is demand by the offeror in lieu of offer directed to offeree. In other words, it is considered as price for promise. 1 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] EWCA Civ 6; [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 427. 2 Crown v Clarke, (1927) 40 CLR 227.
Law3Intention to create legal relations must be present to form valid contract at the time when parties entered into contract. In other words, parties while entering into contract must intended to create legal relations between them. Evidence related to this element is presence of consideration3. Application:In this case, Lame Duck made offer through the quotation and such offer is accepted by Marie. Consideration and intention to create legal relations are also present in this case. Therefore, in this valid contract exists between the parties. Conclusion:Both Marie and Lam entered into valid contract. Part BIssue:Whether mistake is occurred in the contract which exists between Marie and Lame Duck?Law:There are number of contracts which are affected by mistakes, and it is considered as complex area of contract law. Usually, it is not possible for arties to cancel or rectify the contract on the grounds of mistake. Contract cannot be cancelled even though mistake is occurred to some fundamental aspect of contract. If only one party to the contract commit any mistake in relation to any element of the contract, but other party is not mistaken then such mistake is known as unilateral mistake. For unilateral 3 ACL, Agreement, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html>, Accessed on 16thSeptember 2017.
Law4mistake no remedy is stated by common law, but equity provides remedy for the same. Remedy provided by equity is subject to the condition that other party who has not being mistaken must conduct some action which is improper in nature. This can be understood like; party other than mistaken party must conduct any action which is not proper such as it restrict the ways through which another party known about their mistake. It must be noted that if unmistaken party involves in any misleading party then superior remedies are provided by Equity. However, in case of normal mistakes equity only provides actionable remedies such as remedy of rescission or rectification4. Application:In this case, wrong quotation was send by Lame Duck to the Marie and Marie accepts that quotation. Contract between Lame Duck and Marie is affected by unilateral mistake, and mistakeis occurred in relation to fundamental terms of the contract that is price of the contract. This can be understood through case lawSmith v Hughes5. In this case, court decided that contract exists between the parties because both the parties intended to purchase and sell the oats but element related to meeting of minds was not present in this case. Exact results are not provided by this case, and this matter was also decided in case law Taylor v Johnson6. In this case, Court stated that if unmistaken party engaged in any improper conduct then mistaken party can rescind the contract. However, in present case it is not possible for Lame Duck to rectify or rescind the contract because there is no unconscionable conduct on the part of Marie. 4 ACL, Mistake, < https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/avoidance-mistake.html>, accessed on 16thSeptember 2017. 5 Smith v Hughes, Court of Queen's Bench [1871] LR 6 QB 597. 6 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Contract Between Lame Duck Restaurant and Marielg...
|10
|2003
|137
Solution 1 Issue A Whettetahl 3 Law 4 Application and Conclusion 5 Law 6 Law 7 Bibliography 8 Solution 1 Issue A Whettahl 3 Law 4 Application And Conclusion 6 Law 6 Law 7 Application And Conclusion 6lg...
|8
|2176
|183
INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW DISCUSSION 2022lg...
|8
|1893
|50
Legal Issues and Mistakes in Contract Formationlg...
|5
|1298
|81
Tort Law and Contract Law Assignmentlg...
|9
|2232
|191
Legal Advice for Contractual Mistakeslg...
|5
|1300
|54