Mayfair Case Study: Contract Law Breach, Fraud & Remedies Analysis

This case study examines a breach of contract by Mayfair, highlighting potential torts of concealment and conspiracy due to fraudulent misrepresentation. Mayfair failed to disclose the likelihood of a labor strike, adding a clause to avoid liability, which resulted in reputational and contractual losses for the other party. The analysis questions whether the remedy is limited to breach of contract, considering fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional concealment, suggesting rescission as a viable remedy. Furthermore, it explores the damages that the affected party is entitled to, including special damages for monetary loss, general damages for loss of reputation, and potentially punitive damages to deter future misconduct. Desklib offers this and other solved assignments to aid students in their studies.

BUSINESS LAW
Contract Law
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Based on the given facts, it is apparent that there has been a breach of contract by Mayfair.
Additionally, owing to fraud being committed, torts of concealment and conspiracy are also
applicable. Mayfair was aware that there was a significant likelihood of a labor strike during
the contractual period which could adversely impact the contractual obligation (Peel 78).
However, the company still did not disclose the same to us. Instead, they added a clause to
relieve them of any liability in case of labor related issues and thereby safeguarding their own
interests. We relied on Mayfair to discharge their contractual liabilities in good faith but we
suffered injury on account of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts by them.
Loss has been incurred by us in the form of reputation loss coupled with contractual loss with
the customer. The proximate cause for this loss is the fraudulent misrepresentation on the part
of Mayfair and hence contract has been breached (Andrews 113-114).
Question 2
No, it would not be correct to conclude that the remedy available is limited to only breach of
contract. It is apparent that there has been fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of
Mayfair as a factual piece of information was intentionally not told even though it had the
potential to adversely impact us. Also, had we known about the impending labor issue at
Mayfair, it is highly likely that we would not have entered into contractual relationship with
them. Therefore, it is apparent that the concealment of information was intentionally carried
out so as to induce us into entering the contract. Thus, in the given situation, it is highly likely
that we may charge Mayfair with multiple issues ranging from concealment tort, committing
fraud and hiding vital information with the potential intention to defraud. In such a scenario,

BUSINESS LAW
it is possible that rescission may be a viable remedy that might be recommended by the court
as the labor issue is not an unforeseen event (Peel 98-99).
Question 3
In the given scenario, since there has been failure on part of Mayfair to fulfill the contractual
obligation, hence there would be refund of the prepayment paid by us. However, besides that
there would be a host of damages payment that we are entitled to in the scenario presented.
A relevant damage type is special damages which are paid on account of monetary loss that is
suffered by the innocent party owing to the fraudulent actions and contractual breach. In the
scenario provided, we would be entitled to damages from Mayfair for the loss of contract
with the customer and any potential payment to an alternative manufacturer for providing the
requisite part (Taylor and Taylor 78-79). Additionally, for any damages that cannot be
quantified reliably, general damages are awarded. For the given situation, loss of reputation
would be suffered by us for which we would be entitled to general damages. Finally, punitive
damages may also be awarded by the court so as to act as a deterrent for the future (Taylor
123).

BUSINESS LAW
References
Andrews, Neil, Contract Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2014)
Peel, Edwin, The Law of Contract (7thed.). London: Thompson (2016)
Taylor, Richard and Taylor, Damian, Contract Law, London: Oxford University Press (2015)