Briunna Barr Case Study #1: Contract Law and Breach of Contract

This case study analyzes a scenario involving a potential breach of contract. The student identifies the issue, which is whether a valid breach of contract exists. The student outlines the rules of contract law, including the elements of a contract such as agreement, consideration, legal capacity, and lawful purpose. The student references relevant legal precedents, including *Central London Property Trust Ltd. vs. High Trees House Ltd* and *Hamer vs. Sidway*. The application section applies the rules to the facts, highlighting the lack of consideration in the given scenario. The conclusion states that there is no valid breach of contract. The assignment also includes an overview of the objective theory of contracts, including the elements of agreement, offer, acceptance, and consideration, as well as the legal principles related to each element.

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CASE STUDY
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Brad has a valid breach of contract suit against Sally.
Rules:
Contract is a legally enforceable written document with all the terms and conditions
explicitly mentioned in the contract along with the consideration. The elements of contract are:
 Agreement: this means that the offer and acceptance is an important element for the
determination of the meeting of minds of the parties.
 Consideration: the exchange for which one party is entering into the contract with another
for the fulfillment of the contractual obligation is the consideration (Enright 2007)
(Hamer vs. Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538). The value of consideration differentiates the
contract from volunteering.
 Legal capacity: the parties should have the legal capacity like age, and mental soundness
to enter into the contract.
 Lawful purpose: this means that the purpose for the contract formulation, including the
contractual obligation and the consideration should be lawful in nature otherwise the
contract may be rendered as void ab initio or voidable like the situations of betting and
contingent contract.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is enforceable when one party promises to fulfill the
obligation offered by the other party at the agreed consideration such promise binds the parties in
future (Central London Property Trust Ltd vs. High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130). Any loss
or damage incurred by the aggrieved party due to non-fulfillment of promise is actionable in the

2CASE STUDY
court of law for compensation. Thus, the binding factor in promise as well as the contract is the
determination of consideration. No contract or promise is valid without consideration.
Application:
In the given scenario, the agreement between Brad and Sally was without consideration.
Due to the lack of determination of consideration between the parties, even if other elements
have been satisfies, the promise cannot be legally enforceable due to non-fulfillment of
consideration as an essential element to contract or promise.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Brad does not have a valid breach of contract suit against Sally.

3CASE STUDY
REFERENCES:
Central London Property Trust Ltd vs. High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130
Enright, Máiréad (2007). Principles of Irish Contract Law. Dublin 8: Clarus Press. p. 75.
Hamer vs. Sidway [1891] 124 NY 538