Contract Law Assignment: Rose's Contractual Obligations Analysis

This assignment provides a comprehensive analysis of a contract law scenario involving Rose, Holly, and Grace. It addresses the enforceability of contracts, focusing on the principles of consideration and the intention to create legal relations. The solution examines a renegotiated lease agreement between Rose and Holly, where the rent was reduced. It applies the legal principles established in Foakes v Beer and Currie v Misa to determine the enforceability of the modified contract. Additionally, the assignment evaluates the agreement between Rose and Grace, considering whether a promise to pay £500 is legally binding. The analysis considers the domestic nature of the agreement and refers to the Jones v Padavatton case to determine the intention of the parties to be legally bound. The conclusion provides recommendations on Rose's obligations, stating that she is not required to pay more than £1,000 in rent and is not legally bound to pay Grace £500.

CONTRACT LAW
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

CONTRACT LAW
Issue
The central issue in the given situation is to tender legal advice to Rose in relation to the
enforceability of the contract entered into by her with Holly (Landlady) and Grace
(Daughter).
Relevant Law
A contract once entered can be varied by mutual consent of both the parties involved
provided consideration is present for both the parties involved. In the absence of a mutual
consideration, the modifications to the original contract would not lead to an enforceable
contract which has been highlighted in the Foakes v Beer [1884] UKHL 1. In the given case,
there was an agreement between Dr. Foakes and Mrs.Beer regarding settlement of a debt in
instalments. However, afterwards, the plaintiff (Mrs. Beer) filed a legal application for
obtaining the interest from Dr. Foakes despite initially promising not to sue the same. The
House of Lords ruled in favour of Mrs. Beer since she has no consideration provided for
agreeing to waive the interest (Andrews, 2011). In wake of the above decision, definition of
valuable consideration becomes pivotal for which Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 case
needs to be referred to. This case defines consideration as follows (Peel, 2008).
“A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest,
profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or
responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.”
Another key aspect of contract relates to the presence of the will on the part of the contracting
parties to be bound by legal relations. This is assumed to be present by default in case of
commercial agreements but the same is not the case for domestic agreements (Carter, 2012).
This aspect has been highlighted in the verdict of the Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328
case where the honourable court highlighted that in case of domestic agreements, the default
assumption is that the parties lack the intention to be legally bound and only when there is
evidence in contrary of the same would the contract be held as legally enforceable (Taylor &
Taylor, 2015).
Application
It is apparent that owing to the injury and incremental expenses of an office assistant, Rose
renegotiates the contract with her landlady Holly where there was mutual consent in relation

CONTRACT LAW
to the reduction of rent till the time Rose returns back to work. It is apparent that altering the
original lease contract, there existed an incentive for Rose who would have to pay lesser rent.
But at the same time, there was incentive existing for Holly also she is able to sell the
vegetables grown by herself through the shop. Therefore Holly did not want that the shop
should close down. Thus, the modified contract would be considered as enforceable on both
Rose and Holly.
Further in relation to the promise to Grace, it is apparent that the promise to pay £ 500 was
made by Rose after Grace had already extended the help for two weeks. While for the past
work, Rose has always paid Grace and hence it is appropriate to expect some compensation
on behalf of Grace. However, no such evidence exists in the current case which highlights the
presence on the part of the parties to be legally bound. As a result, the contract between Rose
and Grace cannot be considered as enforceable.
Conclusion
Based on the above, it may be concluded that Rose is not entitled to make any additional
payment more than £1,000 as rent to Holly for the six month period. Also, Rose is not legally
bound to make the payment of £ 500 to Grace as the contract is not legally enforceable.

CONTRACT LAW
References
Andrews, N. (2011). Contract Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, J. (2012). Contract Act in Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications.
Peel, E. (2008). The Law of Contract (7th ed.). London: Thompson.
Taylor, R. & Taylor, D. (2015) Contract Law (5th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.