Business Law: Contractual Liabilities and Partnership Agreements

This assignment is a business law report analyzing a case study involving Emily, Rachel, and the Jenga Brothers Builders. The core issues examined are contractual obligations, liabilities, and the application of legal remedies. The report explores whether Emily and Rachel are liable for additional payments to the builders, considering elements like time essence, substantial performance, and the doctrine of frustration. The analysis delves into partnership agreements, outlining essential components and addressing personal liability concerns when securing loans. The case study, "Looking Sharp", provides the basis for analyzing the roles of the partners and their employees. The report provides a comprehensive review of business law principles related to contracts, partnerships, and potential breaches.

Running head- BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Business Law
Parties
The parties are Emily, Rachel and the Jenga Brothers Builders.
Issue
The main issues that are observed are as follows:
1. Whether Emily and Richard are liable to pay the additional amount to Jenga Brothers?
2. Whether they shall sign a new contract with the Builders or pay the amount of $
15000 to them?
Rule
The rule followed in the given scenario shall is the remedies that are available under a
contract. These points are specified as follows:
1. In the case where a party substantially performs, the later is obligated to do the same
and are liable for the damages caused to the party. Following the action of Quantum,
Meruit time is an essential essence of a contract and shall be considered in the
performance of the parties (Fitzpatrick and Symes 2014).
2. The doctrine of Frustration states that the performance in the contract shall be reduced
due to certain circumstances that have arisen that was not known by either of the
parties as stated in the case of Horlock v Beal (1916)
Analysis
By the application of the following rules, it can be stated that as the time essence
matters in the contract following the action of Quantum meruit it is clear that the
responsibility was Alan’s to make sure the delivery was on the proper time. So it shall be

2Business Law
considered that the performance was not duly made by Alan. Moreover, following the
doctrine of Frustration, it is clear that Alan’s refusal was based on the delay that Emily and
Rachael were not responsible for. They were innocent and did not knew about the delay and
knew that the work would be complete. Following this Frustration ends the contract and
under this, the money paid by the parties are not recovered.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that as the damage was not foreseen earlier and did not
occur due to them and following the doctrine, they shall be not liable to pay Jenga Brother the
amount as the contract was breached nor shall be liable to pay the additional amount.
Although they may enter into a new contract, it shall require offer, acceptance and
consideration from both the parties. Once this is established, a new contract can be made.

3Business Law
Reference
Fitzpatrick, J. and Symes, C., 2014. Business And Corporations Law. 4th ed.
Horlock v. Beal | [1916] UKHL 795