Contract Law Assignment: Remedies for Breach and Vicarious Liability

This document presents solutions to a contract law assignment. Answer 1 discusses a contract between a minor (Elton Beeber) and KPI, exploring contract discharge through frustration due to a fire at the venue. It examines self-induced frustration and the rights of KPI to claim damages against MLH. Answer 2 analyzes breach of contract, specifically express repudiation by Elton, and the remedies available to LPV, including injunctions and specific performance, while also addressing the enforceability of contracts with minors. Answer 3 focuses on duress, explaining economic duress and its implications for a contract between MLH and KPI, allowing KPI to potentially recover additional fees. Finally, Answer 4 addresses vicarious liability, where ticket holders sue KPI for Elton's lip-syncing, and explains KPI's liability for the actions of their employees, highlighting the employer's right to seek damages from the employee.

Contract Law 1
Answer 1
In this case, contract is signed between the Elton Beeber (minor and KPI on 1st January 2017 in
terms of performing at the concert on 1st December 2017 in St. Catharine. Later, on 15th January
KPI signed another contract with MLH for taking the St. Catharine coliseum on rent in context
of performance of Elton. Further, KPI pay rental fee of $100,000 for the coliseum and already
paid $50,000 deposit to the MLH. KPI further pay $50,000 to Elton also towards the fee of
$100,000.
On the evening of 21st November, a large fire occurred because of the negligence of security
guard, and this substantially damage the coliseum because of which it is not possible to precede
the transaction. MLH stated that coliseum can be available after 1st February 2018, but Elton
refused to reschedule the date and demands payment of the balance fee of $50000. Request is
made by KPI to the MLH to return the deposit that is $50000 and $500,000 as damages for
breach of contract.
There are number of forms through which contract is discharged, and one of these way is
discharge by frustration. Doctrine of frustration applied in very limited situations and it applies
when performance of the contract is not possible because of the external causes or causes which
are not in the parties. It must be noted that, if contract is frustrated then each party related to the
contract is automatically discharged from future obligations and no party can sue for breach.
However, there is an exception also in terms of this rule that is self-induced frustration. As per
this exception, any frustration occurred because of the party’s own conduct or because of the
conduct of those for whom they are responsible then doctrine of frustration is not available for
protecting the party who’s conduct results in the breach of contract or this frustration event.

Contract law 2
Breach is considered as major breach if there is breach of most important term or the whole
contract, and the purpose of the contract is defeated. Breach of contract gives number of rights to
the non-breaching party such as right to claim the damages. However, there are two requirements
related to claim for damages that are-
 Loss occurred to the breaching party must occurred because of the breach.
 Damages must be mitigated.
In the present case, KPI holds the right to make claim of damages against the MLH because fire
is occurred because of the negligence of security guard and there is case of self-induced
frustration. As per this exception, any frustration occurred because of the party’s own conduct or
because of the conduct of those for whom they are responsible then doctrine of frustration is not
available for protecting the party who’s conduct results in the breach of contract or this
frustration event. Therefore, MLH cannot use the shield of doctrine of frustration, and it is
treated as breach of contract.
Damages can be claimed by the KPI against the MLH which includes the deposit of $50,000 and
$500,000 as the damage suffered by the KPI because of non-performance of contract.
However, situations are different in case of Elton and he cannot claim for balance of $50,000
from the KPI because doctrine of frustration is applicable in this case. Doctrine of frustration
applies when performance of the contract is not possible because of the external causes or causes
which are not in the parties. As KPI fails to perform the contract because of the external causes
which are not in the control of party. Therefore, KPI can use the shield of doctrine of frustration.
This doctrine gives the remedy that, if contract is frustrated then each party related to the

Contract law 3
contract is automatically discharged from future obligations and no party can sue for breach.
Therefore, no party is liable to perform to future obligation related to contract.
Answer 2
Breach of contract may occur by expressly repudiating the obligations related to contract or
acting in such manner as it automatically make it impossible to perform the contract. Express
repudiation occurred when any negligent act is committed by the party that makes the
performance impossible. Repudiation will considered as breach of contract, and numbers of
remedies are available such as damages, equitable remedies, etc.
In the present case, Elton expressly repudiates the contract with the LPV by going on the
vacation at the time of concert date, as express repudiation occurred when any negligent act is
committed by the party that makes the performance impossible. This act of Elton will considered
as breach of contract. LPV can seek following remedies from the court against the Elton.
 LPV can seek injunction from court in terms of prohibiting the Elton from leaving the
Las Vegas, as this falls under the equitable remedy. In this Court holds the power to
restraining the breaching party from doing something and also orders the party to do
something.
 LPV can also seek for specific performance under the equitable remedy, and under this
Elton can be ordered to perform his obligations in the same way as stated in the contract.
 LPV cannot seek this injunction because it does not fall under the remedy available for
breach of contract.
 Damages can be seek by the LPV against the Elton in terms of breach of contract, and if
damages are not adequate then court also gives the above stated remedies.

Contract law 4
Any contract with minor is not considered as valid contract because minor does not hold the
capacity to enter into contract. Following are the rules which drive the contract with minors in
terms of repudiation-
 If minor accepts the advantages from the contract then it is not possible to repudiate the
contract.
 In case minor wants to repudiate the contract then minor must show that contract is
repudiate because of the incapacity or benefit under the contract is lost.
However, situation is not different in case of contract with minor, because in this Elton accepts
the advantages related to the contract and now any repudiation is not possible. Further, In case
minor wants to repudiate the contract then minor must show that contract is repudiate because of
the incapacity or benefit under the contract is lost and in the present case both the situations are
not present.
Answer 3
Duress is established at the time when contracting parties proves that they enter into the contract
because of the illegitimate pressure, which means, dominance party pressurize the weaker party
in illegitimate manner to enter into the contract. Duress generally includes the threat related to
person, property, and any other thing. It must be noted that duress further includes the economic
duress also.
Economic duress exists at the time when financial threat is involved such as dominant party
threatens the weaker party to not perform the contract. It is necessary to understand that all such
threats will ultimately cause duress. If contract is created under duress then contract is voidable
at the option of weaken party.

Contract law 5
In the present case, MLH threatens at the end time to the KPI to not perform the contract if they
do not sign the contract to pay extra fees of $100,000. This contract is signed under the economic
duress because economic duress exists when financial threat is involved such as dominant party
threatens the weaker party to not perform the contract. In this case also, the financial threat is
given to weaken party that is KPI.
Therefore, KPI can demand the return of the additional fee of $100,000 they pay to MLH
because this contract with MLH is signed under duress, as KPI proves that they enter into the
contract because of the illegitimate pressure, which means, MLH pressurize the KPI in
illegitimate manner to enter into the contract.
Answer 4
In the present case, ticket holders discovered that Elton is not signing any of his songs which he
sing at the time of his dancing routines that is almost 75% of his songs, but in actual he is lip
sinking to the songs which are pre-recorded. Holders of Ticket take the class action suit against
the KPI and seeking claim from the Court that is $125.
Vicarious liability refers to that situation in which one party to the contract is hold responsible
for the actions and omissions of any other person. In terms of workplace law, employer can be
held liable for the acts or omissions of its employees. As stated employer is liable for the torts
committed by employees, which means, they are vicariously liable for the actions of their
employees.
This action of Elton fall under the law of tort, and because of this ticket holders hold the right to
take action against the employer that is KPI, because employer is liable for the torts committed
by employees, which means, they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

Contract law 6
However, employer holds the rights to seek damage occurred to him because of his tort action,
and in this case also KPI can seek damage occurred to him from the Elton.