Law of Contract: Case Study Analysis - CLC Level 4 Diploma

This document presents a detailed analysis of a Law of Contract case study, examining various scenarios and legal principles. The analysis covers key elements of contract law, including offer, acceptance, and consideration, as well as the legal implications of agreements. The case study explores multiple scenarios involving contract formation, breach of contract, and remedies. It addresses issues such as advertising, unfair terms, mutual mistakes, and the legal effects of oral and written contracts. The analysis references relevant case law, such as Hyde v Wrench, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, and Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co, to support the legal arguments. The document provides a comprehensive understanding of contract law principles and their application in real-world situations. The document is a valuable resource for students studying contract law, offering insights into legal concepts and practical applications.

LAW OF CONTRACT

Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3
CASE 1..................................................................................................................................................3
Question 1:........................................................................................................................................3
Question 2:........................................................................................................................................3
Question 3:........................................................................................................................................4
Question 4:........................................................................................................................................4
Question 5:........................................................................................................................................4
CASE 2..................................................................................................................................................4
Question 6:........................................................................................................................................4
Question 7:........................................................................................................................................5
Question 8:........................................................................................................................................5
Question 9:........................................................................................................................................5
CASE 3..................................................................................................................................................6
Question 10:......................................................................................................................................6
Question 11:......................................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................8
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
Law of contract refers to the body of law which is mainly imposed in respect of
securing the rights of the parties who entered into the agreement regarding sharing any
valuable things. As all contract are not agreement but all agreement are contract. To enter
into the valid contract, parties must fulfill the following terms which is mentioned in the
contract such as their must be offer and acceptance between the parties, the partners must be
competent to enter into the contract (Bakar, Yasin and Razali, 2018). The contract must be
based on the written form and also deal is made on the bases of consideration. In this report,
the discussion of contract law and its situation are determined through understanding the
cases. Accurate remedies and laws are imposed to overcome from the issues and provide fair
decision to the partners.
CASE 1
Question 1:
(A)
In respect of creating the legally binding contract between the Shona and Raymond, it
is necessary that there must be agreement between the partners. The agreement must carry
various essential elements such as one party offer some valuable things to another party and
the other party in return accepts such offer. The agreement must be made on the bases of
consideration (Clarke, 2017). Thus, in this case the agreement must be made which is legally
binding upon the parties to follow it. In such aspects, there is no contract is made between the
Shona and Raymond as the offer is made by Raymond through the advertisement. In respect
of acceptance, there is no clear communication regarding purchasing of the books. Thus, no
claim is raised against the violation of the terms of contract. The judgment is supported with
the decision given under the case of Hyde V Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 regarding not having
clear instruction before accepting the offer (Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132, 2020). Thus, it
results in counter of offer.
(B)
The legal position which is carried by Raymond advert in that disclosing the correct in
information in the advertisement and also during the time of conveying accurate detail of
information is given to the customer. This helps in making the contract more useful. Shona is
correct in that perspective as the advertisement reflects about the whole books and thus,
during the time of communicating with them, they must share the detail of the books which is
available at that time. The issue is similar as in case of Carlill V carbolic Smoke ball Co
[1893] 1 QB 256 in which the Carlill is attracted by viewing the carbolic advertisement
regarding purchasing the carbolic ball (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256,
2020). It further results in facing injuries to body and thus compensation is raised in respect
of making false advertisement.
Question 2:
In case of Shafiq, he is not liable to pay any of the amount as there is not such
contract between the parties. Shafiq made an offer to ADS-FOR-YOU regarding examining
their detail of the advertising material. After viewing the prices, he not accepts any such

offers. As the terms which is carried by ADS-FOR-YOU is unfair and thus, in case of not
entering into any contract, the contract is void and not legally bound upon the parties. In case
of Olley V Marlborough court [1949], the case is relating to booking the hotel, where it is
clearly stated regarding not having any terms mentioned in the contract. But later the terms is
mentioned regarding any stolen in hotel is not their liability (Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd
[1949] 1 KB 532, 2020). Similarly, in this case, the term is unfair and also it is not the part of
the contract.
Question 3:
The most common rule of contract is that as all contract are not agreement but all
agreement are contract and thus, in case of agreement, it must carry three major aspects offer,
acceptance and promise (Giliker, 2017). It is indicted that when one party offer some
valuable things to another party and another party accepts such offer on the bases of promise.
By reflecting the rule of contract, it is examined that Jonathon is liable to get £8000 in return
of work committed by him.
Question 4:
In respect of entering into the binding agreement, it is stated that Chung lee enter into
the agreement with the Katie regarding accepting the offer which is made by Katie. The deal
is signed on the bases of promise which is made in respect of transferring the money through
bank (Guest and Clinton, 2017). If such condition are fulfilled or contract is made on written
format, they are legally bound by the order of the court. It is also stated that the property is
indeed to Chung lee only as contract is based on written agreement which is obliged to Katie
to follow as per the set terms.
Question 5:
The legal effects which is undertaken by Ted and Daphne regarding not getting
accurate products which they ordered is relating to carrying the chance to apply under the
consumer protection act, 1999 in respective of unfair terms. The situation reflects the same as
in case of Curtis V chemical cleaning [1951] A KB 805 in which the liability of the person if
they are facing any unfair terms can liable to get claims for the losses incurred (Curtis v
Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805, 2020).
In respect of examining the right of the Ralpinda regarding getting defective TV, they
can approach to the consumer forum regarding filling suit in respect of not disclosing any
such information regarding the defects in TV. As in this case, Ralpinda is liable to get calms
for the damages incurred as nothings specific is mentioned in the contract and also breach in
committed in the condition of the contract.
CASE 2
Question 6:
In respect of understanding the concept of contract and its agreement between the
parties, they carry certain essential elements such as their must be offer and acceptance
between the parties, the contract must be made on the bases of consideration. If both the
parties agreed on certain terms and condition, they entered into the contract and such contract
is legally bound upon the parties to follow it (Ndzi, 2017). In this case Kieran entered into the

contract with the KUNG-FU-KIT regarding buying the knife and also the contract is made on
the consideration amount which is fixed is relating to £100. The delivery of such products is
made after the time period of 7 days. After the period is over, the owner refused to pay the
delivery and thus results in breach of the contract. In terms of legality of the contract, both
person are competent to enter into the contract and also they carry the right to deal in any of
the valuable things which not violating any person rights.
Similarly, in the case of Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349, in this case Edward
is the airline pilot and thus he withdrew his contribution by getting more benefits which is
provided by the company in the form of ex gratia payment (Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1
WLR 349, 2020). But after some time period, the company faces financial difficulty and thus
withdrawal from such promise. Thus, the judgment is raised in respect of legally binding
upon the agreement upon both the parties.
Question 7:
In case of Saba, the agreement which they entered must be legal, if both the parties
agree mutually to enter into the contract. In respect of terms of contract, it is stated that if any
of the parties not agree with any of the terms mentioned in the contract, they carry the rights
to terminate the contract or make the contract void. The condition which is imposed by Aisha
is legal and thus if Saba not accepts such terms than the terms of the contract is not valid.
Thus, legality in the contract is raised when both the parties legally decide with all the
condition mentioned in the agreement. The legality of contract between the couples regarding
imposing condition in the contract is stipulated by the case of Merritt V Merritt [1970] 1
WLR 1211 in which the case reflects the matters regarding entering into the agreement in
respect of paying the whole amount if the mortgage money is made (Merritt v Merritt [1970]
1 WLR 1211, 2020). As both the partner agree with such term and thus, it indicates that
agreement is legally bound upon the parties.
Question 8:
In terms of law, they carry the right or enter into the agreement regarding splitting the
money which they collected in context of planning the trip to Europe. In this aspects, both the
parties in respect of mutual consent enters into any agreement which satisfying their needs in
better manner. This is one of the essential elements which is mentioned in the contract
regarding carrying mutual consent of the parties to enter into any agreement. The case affects
the right of the other parties but in case of entering into the mutual agreement between the
Drik and Harry, they are legally bound by the court norms. The case is supported by this
stated case D&C Builders V Rees [1966] 2 WLR 28 which reflects the matters relating to not
paying money without the set time and also move into different country in respect of
avoiding the payment (D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617, 2020). In this, the terms of
legality of the contract is successfully claimed by the Builder regarding paying him the
complete amount.
Question 9:
In this case, the legality of the contract is undertaken when the parties enter into the
oral or written contract and such contract is made by the competent person. The contract is
not binding upon the parties, as this is exchanged in informal manner. Usually the existence
of contract is undertaken in respect of informal way. But the liability of the contract is

undertaken through providing the written contract and also it is legally bound upon the parties
to follow it. It is supported with the case of Oscar Chess Ltd V Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370,
as in this case the matters resulting in making the deal through the informal way by accepting
the car of 1948 model. After viewing the paper the contract is made but before signing by the
party, it is examined that the actual car is of 1939 model (Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1
WLR 370, 2020). Thus, it is stated that the judgment is raised in respect of not carrying any
legality, as the deal is made on the fraudulent bases and thus, the cancellation of the contract
is undertaken.
CASE 3
Question 10:
(A)
The legal situation which is exit between the Steven and Brian is that they both enter
into the agreement through the form of letters regarding offering to sell the Dominator and
Norton TT racing. In this case the Steven is performing the contract in right manner as the
offer is made through the letter. The return of such acceptance of offer is made through the
form of letter only and thus the confusion is raised regarding using the word little beauty
which is wrongly interpreted by the Brian (Singh, Anwar and Rasuly, 2018). This case
reflects the matters related to mutual mistake as this is reflected by the case study of the
Raffles V Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906 as in this case both the parties agreed to buy and
sell the cotton and the delivery is made through ‘the Peerless’. One predicted that the
shipping is made in October and another party think that it received in December. Both
agreed on the same things and enter into the contract (Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 2020). If the
judgment is stipulated by referring to our present case, the contract is void and not liable to be
perform by any of the parties.
But, in this case, the breach is committed by the Steven regarding imposing wrong
products in the Dominator and sold to Brian. The case reflects the matters related to
misrepresentation of the vehicles and also sold in very bad condition. Thus, the case is filed
under the misrepresentation act, 1967. In case of Smith v land and house property corp
(1884) 28 Ch D 7, the case stipulated the matters related to selling the property after knowing
the facts that the resistance is no longer retained in the products (Smith v Land & House
Property Corporation (1884) 28 Ch D 7, 2020). By referring this case in the present case, it
reflects the matters related to knowing the facts by Steven, that they imposed poor quality
products in dominator, which carries less resistance in the products.
(B)
Brian is carrying the legal remedies in case of not disclosing the complete information
about the products before selling it to Brian. The remedies which they attained in respect of
recovering from the losses is relating to taking the steps under the rescission of the contract.
This is mainly adapted in case of facing vitiating factors such as mistake, misrepresentation
in the contract. Rescission remedy is mainly undertaken in respect of seeking the party to be
back in their pre contractual position and making the contract void. This is supported with the
case relating to the Car & Universal Credit V Caldwell [1964] 2 WLR 600 as in this case the
matter is related to stole of car and the other party sold the car without the notification of

selling (Car & Universal Credit V Caldwell [1964] 2 WLR 600, 2020). Thus, in this case Mr.
Caldwell carry the right to successfully rescind the contract.
Another remedy which is undertaken by the Brian is relating to the claiming damages
for the losses incurred under the inconvenient which they faced regarding not competing the
contract as per the set terms. The vehicle which is provided by Steven is not suitable to use
and also not retained for the longer terms because of the products which they use is of poor
quality. In case of Bailey v bullock [1950] 2 All ER 1167, the issue is raised regarding not
working under the said condition regarding completing the house for the period of 2 months.
Thus, issues raised in respect of inconvenience in staying at the crowed place (B A I L E Y V
B U L L O C K : 1 9 5 0 , 2020). Similarly, in the present case, Brain failed consequences
regarding carrying adequate inspection about the dominator and then filling the suit against
the Steven in respect of sending the wrong vehicle.
Question 11:
(A)
The situation which exit between the Kiran and Tasmin is the case of intentionally
misrepresentation. As after knowing all the facts by the Kiran regarding not carrying any
stability of the vehicle for the long travelling purpose, still he sell it to Tasmin. After
verifying this case, the legal situation which the Kiran had to carry is relating to disclosing all
the facts and information to Tasmin instead of hiding the relevant facts. This is supported
with the case relating to the Horsfall V Thomas [1862] 1 H&C 90, as in this case the claimant
purchase the gun from the defendant without using or conducting any inspection regarding
the availability of the gun (Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90, 2020). After using the gun,
it found that it carry the defects in the internal equipment. Thus, the issues of
misrepresentation is undertaken regarding not disclosing the complete information and also
he is unaware of the fact which is undertaken during the time of contract.
(B)
In this case the legal remedies which is available to Tasmin is relating to applying for
the damages which he faced regarding not disclosing the complete information. In terms of
damages, he can claimed under the speculative damages which results in causing losses to the
person physically in near future, if he continue to use the motors bike. This is supported with
the case relating to the Chaplin V Hicks, in this case the matters is relating to not inviting
Chaplin in the particular time period which results in not gaining the chances of winning the
contest (Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786, 2020). The claim which is raised in respect of
getting rewards of £100 but the opponent raised that the chances are less of winning the
consent, as this occurs in future perspective. But still the judgment is raised in favor of
Chaplin regarding carrying the right to get such compensation for the losses incurred.
The another remedy which he is liable to perform is relating to claiming for the
rescission of the contract as under this contract, the parties force the other party to star the
contract from the starting or cancel the contract. The situation of the rescission of the contract
is raised in respect of facing the vitiating factors. This is linked up with the case relating to
the Long V Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753 in which the issue is raised regarding after knowing all
the problems in the lorry still the deal is made (Long v Lloyd [1958] 2 All ER 402, 2020). But
the case is similar regarding seeing all the true document which is presented by the Kiran, but

not compare the actual and fraud paper and thus, the demand for rescind remedy is applied in
the court.
(C)
If any contract is entered on the terms and condition relating to the not carrying any
liability regarding the misrepresentation of the contract, than parties carry less liability to file
the suit against getting compensation for the losses incurred. Thus, in this case, Tasmin carry
the right to file the suit under the rescission instead of claiming for the damages. The
judgment and case is similar with the case of Doyle V Olby [1969] 2 QB 158 as in this case
after knowing all the defects which is mentioned by the company providing fraudulent
misrepresentation, they still provided the true statement to the parties and enter into the
contract (Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158, 2020). The claimant faces losses
in relation to suffering huge damages in business, Thus, the judgment is reflected in the
present case regarding not demanding any compensation still of applying for rescission of
contract.
CONCLUSION
From the above study, the report is concluded with the matter resulting in contract law
and also its various implication which is faced by parties in making the contract valid. In this
report, very case is different and also the situation which is mentioned in the case reflects the
valid and void contract terms and also the remedies which is provided to the parties to
recover from the damages incurred. It is also stated that accurate cases are imposed to support
the particle case and also the decision helps in understanding or presenting the cases in right
manner.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bakar, N. M. A., Yasin, N. M. and Razali, S. S., 2018. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (United
Kingdom): Is it a Good Model in Protecting Banking Consumers from Unfair Terms
in Islamic Banking Consumer Contracts in Malaysia?. Jurnal Undang-undang dan
Masyarakat. 22. pp.21-31.
Clarke, P. H., 2017. Curbing the Abuse of a Dominant Position Through Unfair Contract
Terms Legislation: Australian and UK Comparison. In The Constitutional Dimension
of Contract Law. (pp. 185-216). Springer, Cham.
Giliker, P., 2017. Regulating contracts for the supply of digital content: the EU and UK
response. In EU Internet Law. (pp. 101-124). Springer, Cham.
Guest, D. E. and Clinton, M., 2017. Contracting in the UK: Current research evidence on the
impact of flexible employment and the nature of psychological contracts.
In Employment contracts and well-being among European workers. (pp. 201-223).
Routledge.
Ndzi, E., 2017. UK company law and precarious employment contracts. International
Journal of Law and Management.
Singh, I., Anwar, A. and Rasuly, A., 2018. Prevalence of fragility fractures according to
quality and outcomes framework (QOF) of the general medical services (GMS)
contract and quality initiatives to improve osteoporosis care in the general practice
within Caerphilly County Borough, Wales, UK: a feasibility study. MOJ Gerontology
and Geriatrics. 3(2). pp.98-104.
Online
B A I L E Y V B U L L O C K : 1 9 5 0 . 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://swarb.co.uk/bailey-v-bullock-1950/>.
Car & Universal Credit V Caldwell [1964] 2 WLR 600. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec1121>.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co.php>.
Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/chaplin-v-hicks.php>.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805. 2020. [Online]. Available
through: < https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/curtis-v-chemical-cleaning-and-
dyeing.php>.
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/d-c-builders-v-rees.php>.
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158. 2020. [Online]. Available through:<
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/doyle-v-olby.php>.

Edwards v Skyways [1969] 1 WLR 349. 2020. [Online]. Available through:<
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/edwards-v-skyways.php>.
Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/horsfall-v-thomas.php>.
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/hyde-v-wrench.php>.
Long v Lloyd [1958] 2 All ER 402. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/long-v-lloyd.php>.
Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/merritt-v-merritt.php>.
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/olley-v-marlborough-court-hotel.php>.
Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/oscar-chess-v-williams.php>.
Raffles v. Wichelhaus. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-farnsworth/
finding-the-law-of-the-contract/raffles-v-wichelhaus/>.
Smith v Land & House Property Corporation (1884) 28 Ch D 7. 2020. [Online]. Available
through: < https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/smith-v-land-and-house-corp.php>.