Contract Law Problem Question Solutions: Key Legal Principles

This assignment provides detailed solutions to six contract law problem questions. The problems cover key areas such as intention to create legal relations, consideration, breach of contract, exclusion clauses, and the Sale of Goods Act. Each solution identifies the relevant legal issues, applicable rules, and supporting case law, offering a comprehensive analysis and a reasoned conclusion as to whether a party would succeed in court. The scenarios involve agreements between siblings, police services for private events, debt settlement, DVD rental terms, dry cleaning liabilities, and the sale of goods by description. The document utilizes legal principles and case precedents like Merritt V Merritt, Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council, Foakes v Beer, and L’Estrange v Graucob to analyze each problem, providing a clear understanding of contract law application. Desklib is a valuable platform to find such assignments.

Business
Name
Course
Date
Institution

Question 1
a. The issue that needs consideration is whether the intention of the contract was a
commercial or domestic agreement.
b. The relevant rules related to such problems are that:
i. If the contract was a domestic, then the intention of such contracts would not
be legally binding.
ii. If the intention was regarding commercial contracts, then the rule is that the
parties have legally binding agreement.
b. If one party agrees not to do something but ends up doing it contrary to the
agreement, the court may treat it as a consideration (Singh, 2010).
c. The main cases related to this problem may include:
i. Merritt V Merritt (1970)
ii. Simpkins V Pays (1955)
d. Base on this information, Ali will win the case if she sues Charlie. It is because
Charlie had provided consideration by accepting to open a flower shop 2 kilometers
next to the one he sold to Ali. It is also evident that they used third party solicitors to
make a deal on their behalf with a legal value, therefore they must have intended the
agreement to be binding and their intention was evidence in writing to safeguard their
future actions.
Question 2
a. What needs to be considered in this case is whether the police officer was performing
a public duty or if there was a consideration.
b. The relevant legal rules related to this case are that:

i. If the officer was performing a public duty, then the agreement was not legally
abiding.
ii. If a defendant had promised to pay for the service provided by the officer but
fails to perform then the court may decide that there was a consideration under
promissory estoppels (Singh, 2010).
c. The main cases related to this problem include:
i. Harris v Sheffield Utd FC
ii. Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925) AC 270
d. Based on this information Nick may fail to win the case because there was an
executable consideration when he promised a legal value in exchange of service. In
view of section 25 of the 1996, the court held that holding an event and requesting for
police presence may constitute to special services, and could be implied if the police
presence helped the event to be peaceful.
Question 3
1. A considerable issue in this case is to determine if the services and the money that
Mike paid as part of the outstanding debt was enough to settle his obligation under the
agreement.
2. The relevant problems connected to this case are that:
a. Promisee has to provide consideration in exchange for a promise under
promissory estoppel.
b. The consideration must be of legal value (de Lacy, 1999).
3. The cases connected to this problem are:
a. Foakes v Beer
b. Williams v Roey Bros
c. Stilk v Myrick

4. If Helen sues Mike for the breach of contract, she will win. It is because payment of
lesser amount in satisfaction of a greater amount cannot be satisfaction for the whole.
It appears to the court that there is no possibility for a lesser sum to completely satisfy
the claimant for a greater sum. (Singh, 2010).
Question 4
a. The issue that requires consideration is whether there was a breach of contract
by Lizzie when she failed to return the DVDs on time due to her sickness. A
major issue to identify if the shop owner gave her a reasonable notice before
becoming a member by signing the contract.
b. The relevant legal rules relating to this problem are that:
i. If the other party is given reasonable notice of the term
ii. If the clause is contained in a contractual document, for example, a
clause in a document which merely acknowledges payment like a
notice.
c. Some of the main cases related to this problem include:
i. Thompson v LMS Railway [1930]
ii. Olley v Marlborough Court (1949)
iii. Parker v South Eastern Railway Co.
d. If the DVD store sues Lizzie for breach of the contract, the store will not win.
It is because the courts have in many occasions held that attention should be
drawn to the existence of exclusion clauses by clear words on the surface of
any document provided by the plaintiff. The reasonable sufficient notice must
be provided together with the exclusion clause.
Question 5

a. The issue that requires consideration is whether the dry cleaner breached the
contract between them and Tori, and whether the words on the receipt were
express terms of the agreement.
b. Some of the relevant legal rules that relates to this problem are:
i. If the presence of exclusion clause was brought to the notice of the
other party
ii. If the appellant signed a document having contractual effect containing
an exclusion clause.
c. The main cases related to this case include:
i. L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)
ii. Olley v Marlborough Court [1949]
d. Based on this information, if Tori sue the dry cleaners for the destruction, she
will not win the case. It is because courts favour contracts where the exclusion
clause has been brought to the notice of the other party at the time or before
the contract is entered.
Question 6
1) The problem that requires consideration is whether the supplied item by Mr. Smith
corresponded with the description and if it is fit for the purpose as stated under the
contract.
2) The relevant sections of the Goods Act include:
a) Section 16 (1)
b) Sale of Goods Act 1957 Section 15
3) Some of the cases related to this problem include:
a) Varley v Whipp (1900)
b) BS Brown & Sons Ltd v. Craiks Ltd (1970)

c) Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill (1971)
d) Frank v Grosvenor Motor Auctions (1960)
4) Based on the information, Sandra does not have the right against Smith. It is because
using section 15 of Sale of Goods Act 1957, the courts in Varley v. Whipp (1900) held
that the existence of the sale of goods by description happened between the appellant and
the defendant. Therefore, Sandra cannot claim back the money because the machine does
not fit for the purpose.

References
de Lacy, J 1999, 'Selling in the Course of a Business Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979',
Modern Law Review, vol. 62, no. 5, p. 776.
Singh, A 2010, Business and Contract Law, Thorogood Publishing Ltd, London.