Background of the Case
The issue in this situation is whether Valentina will have the rights to sue the Royal Albert Hall under the Horatio’s hire contract as per the Contract Act.
The background of the case states that Valentina’s godfather entered into a hire contract with the Royal Albert Hall if the Royal School of Acting accepts in casting her in the production of My Fair Lady. The Royal School of Acting had agreed with the proposal, which was offered by Horatio and therefore, he hired the hall for Valentia.
In such a scenario, it can be stated that Valentina will have no rights in suing the Royal Albert Hall under Horatio’s hire contract because she did not enter in to the contract. The essentials of a valid contract as per the Contract Law are applicable in. Valentina did not form a valid contract with the Royal Albert Hall. However, Horatio was one of the parties in forming the contract with it. For a contract to be valid, one party must make an offer. Therefore, if there is no offer, a contract cannot be constituted. To make an offer, there must be another party present for accepting the offer produced. An offer is treated to be different from that of an advertisement. A contract can only be formed legally if there are two or more parties involved with it. Secondly, the party to whom the offer is made must accept the offer. When one party is clear with content of the offer, they would make an acceptance once they are clear about it. A contract can either be in an oral or written form. Thereafter, consideration plays a significant role in the formation of a contract. This defines that a contract is created between two parties based on a consideration. Without any kind of consideration, contract will not be considered to be legal. In this given scenario, it can be observed that there was a consideration between the parties regarding Valentina acting for the play My fair Lady. Fourthly, the parties involved in a contract must have the intention to create legal relations. The parties will have a common intention for creating the contract. Fifthly, the terms and clauses mentioned in the contract must be precise and clear for the parties to comprehend about the nature of the contract. Lastly, both the parties must have attained the age of 18 to form the contract. Minors are not capable to form a legally valid contract with another party. Gibson v Manchester City Council shows how significant the essential elements are for forming a contract. Therefore, Horatio and the Hall fulfilled these elements and Valentina did not act as one of the parties in the formation of a contract.
Essentials of a Valid Contract
The Contract Act, majorly discusses the basic elements as without it a contract cannot be formed. It can be stated that as per the Act, the parties involved in the contract does not include Valentina. She has no right to sue the Hall if it has cancelled the production since less number of tickets was sold. Such a scenario was observed in the case of Clifton v Palumbo.
The issue and matter of this situation is whether Horatio can sue the Royal School of Acting under the education contract of Valentina.
It can be observed that from the scenario that there was an agreement that was formed between the Horatio and the Royal School of Acting. This will also be treated under the Contract Act as an agreement or a contract is generally formed based on the constituents of a valid contract. The essentials of the Contract were formed between these two parties but Horatio cannot sue the school under the education contract of Valentina. The education contract was formed between Valentina and the School, therefore, Horatio cannot use the educational contract for suing the Royal School of Acting. If Horatio wants to sue the School, he can based on the agreement that was formed between the two of them. As per the Contract Act, the parties can sue each other only when they are involved in it and not based on some other contract where they are not a part.
If the agreement is legally formed between the parties then they will be inherited with the power to sue each other. Contract Law states that the persons involved in the argument will only be liable for the acts of each other. However, both Horatio and the Royal School of Acting had formed an agreement on the consideration that his god-daughter Valentina should be casted as Eliza in the production of My Fair Lady. The School had accepted the such consideration due to which Horatio had decided to hire the Royal Albert Hall. However, that did not take place since the Hall had cancelled the production because there was a situation of poor ticket sales and that lead to Horatio lose his deposit money.
Brennan v Lockyer focuses on the points that have been discussed in this scenario. It can be observed from the facts that there was a clear agreement made between the parties. The education contract of Valentina need not be used as he can directly sue the School and take actions for what it had done. Although the School did not breach the contract, instead it fulfilled the elements of the agreement as was promised.
The Issue at Hand
It can be concluded stating that as per the Contract Law, Horatio will have no power to sue the School under the education contract of Valentina. This is because he was not a part of the contract that was made by School and Valentina.
The question that has arose in this scenario is that whether Horatio can claim anything from the Hall.
A contract generally diminishes when the obligations of the parties under a validly formed contract ends. If of the party causes any kind of damage to the other party, he or she will be liable to compensate for the damages caused to him. It was observed in the case of Cutter V Powell. According to the Contract Law, one of the parties is liable to pay the other if either of them has failed to act as per the contract. The contract that was created between them was a legal one and therefore one of the parties failed to fulfill the requirements of the contract as they had decided.
In this given case study, it can be observed that the Royal Albert Hall failed to carry out its activities as was mentioned in the facts due to the sale of poor tickets. Horatio can claim for his money that he had deposited in the Hall for the show of Valentina. he purposes for which damages are made in a civil suit, focusing on: (1) compensatory damages; (2) exemplary and punitive damages; and (3) Restitutionary damages. In this course work we will examine the role of compensation and vindication in contract and tort damages. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the claimant for the loss of right. However, there are certain situations where compensatory damages have little significance. Vindication describes the making good of a right by the award of an adequate remedy. It can be argued that, while the primary purpose of compensation is to provide an indemnity for loss, an award of compensatory damages will nevertheless generally vindicate the right to performance of the contract. However, the courts should confine themselves to awarding compensation for loss or damage due to wrongful conduct and the vindication of rights, and punitive awards should be avoided.
It can be concluded stating that Horatio can claim for the damages from the Hall as he had submitted the deposit money for a particular reason.
The issue in this matter is regarding the damages that Valentina can owe to any of the parties.
It can be observed from the facts of the case study that there are no such damages that Valentina owes to the Hall or the School. The Royal Albert Hall is the only party that owed to Horatio. Only he can claim for compensation from the hall as he had deposited an amount to the Hall for his god-daughter Valentina. The Contract Act discusses the damages for which the party that failed to carry out the duties will be held liable.
Valentina was not involved in the scenario as he she was not the one who had entered into the contracts. Therefore, she will not be liable for any of the damages caused to any party. The only party who can be held liable for the acts is the Royal Albert Hall. The Hall should recover the damages of Horatio as it owed the deposit money.
It can be concluded stating that as per the Contract Law, the persons involved in the Contract or the agreement can only be held liable for his or her acts. Revocation of a contract defines such a situation under the Contract Law.
References:
Andrews, Neil. Contract law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Barnett, Randy E., and Nathan B. Oman. Contracts: Cases and Doctrine. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.
Dressler, Joshua. “Problem in the Contract Law Bundle PAC.” (2015).
Fried, Charles. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.
Knapp, Charles L., Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.
Kötz, Hein. European contract law. Oxford University Press, 2017.
McKendrick, Ewan. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK), 2014.
Pargendler, Mariana. “The Role of the State in Contract Law: The Common-Civil Law Divide.” YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 43 (2016): 143.
Plant, Owned, and Hired-in Plant. “Schedule-Tradesman Insurance Essentials.” Policy 4 (2017): 6LP.
Schwartz, Alan, and Robert E. Scott. “The Common Law of Contract and the Default Rule Project.” Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 1523.
Smits, Jan M., ed. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
