Lizzie vs DVD Shop
This issue is correlated among Charlie together with his sister if the intention of being legally bound is present among them or not present.
Intention is in the same manner is lawfully bounded with several more components of the contract, which are crucial for its formation. If any such component is not present among the parties, therefore they are not lawfully bound by the terms which were signed by them. The court made up many ways by which this component was identified and also analyzed. Many cases were found, where such components were considered by the courts.
The case of Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 in which there was an agreement between a mother and her daughter in which the mother would pay $200 dollars to her daughter if she went to London for studying at the bar. However, the mother thought that her daughter would then join her as a lawyer in Trinidad. The agreement was working properly as the daughter thought that she might get $200 US dollars. But, the mother was giving her $200 of Trinidad dollars which was about less than the half which the daughter was expecting. The question arises, that whether or not the mother and daughter were legally bound to each other. This agreement was totally a internal agreement which raised a audacity that the parties do not consider to be legally bound by the agreement. There had been no such evidence which could have denied the suspicion.
In the end Ali was seen to win this case in the court. Ali bought the flower shop from her brother Charlie, who was earlier the owner of the shop for $45000. The solicitors of both the individuals had consulted the terms for the sale. A restriction was mentioned under the requirements of the agreement that if Charlie is selling his business therefore he will not be able to get engage to any similar business for couple of years for at least two kilometers of radius. In this particular situation though Ali being the Charlie’s sister, according to the internal agreements assumption, no legal contract was made among them. As there was no written agreement seen, therefore Charlie might be responsible for violating the contract. Hence, the intention of getting legally bound is present among Ali and Charlie.
Based on the rules of consideration, it is needed to see whether Nick had the responsibility to pay the amount to the police regarding the services which they provided.
Ali and Charlie’s Flower Shop
One of the most important components related to the formation of the contract is consideration. Several rules are been given by the cases regarding common laws to make such considerations valid. One of the basic rules states that when a consideration is made regarding an already existing public duty is given then such a consideration cannot be declared to be a valid one. Meanwhile, a few exception are also seen in relation to this rule that is if the responsibility which is given by the law is exceeded, then it will be declared as a valid consideration.
Among all the cases, one of which declares that no consideration regarding the current duty at the law mentioned in the case England v Davidson (1840) 11 ad & e 856, In this case, the defendant offered a sum of £50 to the person who will help him catch the people who broke into his house. However, when the police officer did the work, the defendant then refused to pay the amount. It was declared that the contract was enforceable by the law and hence the amount was needed to be paid.
The case of Gray v Martino (1918) 91 NJ law 462 stated that American case were not binding in UK. D offered P and reward, P a police officer was getting $500 as a reward for providing the details of the thieves to D. Later, P was sued for the reward.
But, the Supreme court found it to be P’s duty therefore the amount must not be given to him.
No, Nick did not win in the court. Regarding the facts which are given in this scenario it is declared that the police already had the responsibility of protecting Nick in that particular time period. In this situation, the rules of England v Davidson, are build up on a certain consequence that no consideration in the contract among both of the parties are formed. But in this situation it was seen that Nick had asked the police officer to guard for an entire night for a requested sum of $1000. We find that a valid consideration was given by the police.
It is regarding the case related to partial payments of the debts as an assurance to create a contract.
Discussing regarding the rules of partial payments of the debts, when it is given in parts just to settle the debts it is not liable to be considered by the law as a valid consideration. The part payments can be valid if it is followed by further dates of the payments and has been done before the due date.
Nick and the police
The case regarding this rule is the Pinnel’s case (1602) 77 ER 237. It is related to the issues regarding the part payments which have been forwarded by the court itself. The court accordint to this case stated that if the partial payment is done with added fixtures before the due date or different destinations can the payment be said as a valid consideration. Similar issues have also been forwarded in the case of Foakes v Beer [1881-5] All ER Rep 106.
No, Helen is not going to accomplish if he tries to sue Mike regarding the violation of the contract. It is taking place because even though the payments of the debs are done partly. Mike also in that situation given the payment which is followed by added fixture which was of checking the BMW’s steering wheel which belonged to Helen. In the end the conclusion is seen where we find that Helen will not be able to win over Mike.
The issues mentioned in this case is that whether the expression at the argument among Lizzie and the DVD store has been perfectly mentioned as a contractual term or not.
When the documents which are unsigned are at issue then they are considered as contractual terms or it does not vary on sensible notices regarding these terms are given or not. When the sensible notices are given, the terms are then incorporated in the contract. There are also some components which have been investigated to conclude whether this notice is said to be sensible or not. It also concludes the looks of the contract to be contractual. In the similar way the terms can also be concluded by notice.
In the case regarding such terms being said to be unusual are of Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programes [1988] All ER 348. In such cases it has been mentioned that the terms stated in the contract are not usual regarding the things mentioned in the contract what is actually present in the terms stated in the contract are specifically bought into notice of the further party to the contract just to be rightly include.
No, Lizzie will win the case over the DVD shop, as she saw a sign which contained numerous contractual terms. One of the following terms in the agreement listed that Lizzie will be able to get the DVD’s for 3 months at a cost of $100 and based on those terms mentioned she got into the contract with the store. Meanwhile, as she was ill she was unable to return the DVD. After curing when she returned the DVD to the store she was shown the terms which were mentioned in the contract, which stated that the DVD’s needed to be returned after one night, if failing to do that then they will charge $20 for every night as a penalty, the usual fine being $5 per night. Studying the above mentioned case it is said that it was specifically brought to the notice of Lizzie for concluding it in a rightful manner as it is said to be an unusual term, which cannot be incorporated. Therefore, the Lizzie will win over the DVD shop.
Helen and Mike’s Debt
Whether or not, the banned section which is there in the Contract made among Tori and the dry cleaners is valid.
Such banned sections are made parts of the contract as the parties set their own boundaries or keep out their responsibilities regarding the contract. Meanwhile, such a ban is valid in the law or not valid in the law is dependent on the addition and integration of it in the contractual terms. When such documents are signed the terms related to it is legally bound even where it is not mentioned, unless misrepresentation or fraud is there.
There was a case of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805 in which the defendants of the case had a laundry in which the applicant took her wedding dress for cleaning purpose. A paper which contained the banned section of the contract and was labeled as a receipt was made to sign by her. This clause was not binding as it was declared to be misprinted.
No, Tori will not be able to win against the dry cleaners. A contract has been found between the two parties. It is also seen that Tori signed a receipt which was actually a headed agreement. The document had a banned section in which the responsibility of the dry cleaner is limited. As mentioned from the above cases no such misrepresentation was seen here.
Therefore, it is said that Tori will not be able to win if she claims a case against the dry cleaners.
6. Issue
Whether sanders can make a thriving claim in opposition to Mr. Smith regaring the terms mentioned in the contract.
According to s. 19 of the GA 1958, None of the indirect conditions regarding the sale of the goods are present apart from the individual who would buy such goods through suggestions or specifically signifies that such goods are bought for a particular purpose and they rely on how well the seller is able to make the use of it. Such a section does not imply if the goods present are having dissimilar description which would turn it to be unsuitable for the purpose.
According to the mentioned case of David Jones v Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110, the buyer who brought the product relied upon the seller for purchasing such a good for a particular mentioned to the seller that the goods are bought for a specific reason. But, it was a violation of the obscure condition that such goods did not fit the purpose.
Yes, in this case Sanders will be totally able to get his claim successful alongside Mr. Smith, as she totally relied on the expert advice of Mr. Smith for purchasing the good, she herself told him that the machine was being brought up for a specific reason. Sander finds that the machine she got is unable to handle the tasks given by her and it is becoming slow and also cracks are seen in the display of the machines glass. There was this obscure condition in which the copier was said not to be slow as Sanders required a copier which is fast and even after she informed the seller Mr. Smith before the purchase was made she was not given the right product to fulfill her needs. As the copier is not what Sanders wanted it is said to be a violation of the given situation and therefore we can be assured that Sandra will be winning the case over Mr. Smith.
References
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805
David Jones v Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110
ENGLAND V DAVIDSON (1840) 11 AD & E 856
GOODS ACT 1958 (Vic)
GRAY V MARTINO (1918) 91 NJ LAW 462
Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programes [1988] All ER 348
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328
Pinnel’s case (1602) 77 ER 237
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
