Business law case study Essay

This essay allow for discuss the Case study by firstly identifying four elements of contract, then justifying duties of Mr. Martin with applying the principles of pre-existing contractual duties. at long last a discussion about diverge lucrement of debt and promissory estoppel forget be explained. Likewise, this essay will evaluate the knowledge of parking area legal philosophy and agency relationship. interrogative sentence 1a) Four essential elements of a contract should be Offer, Acceptance, Intention to create legal relations and Consideration. Firstly, prolong, according to Adams(2012), is a sound and solve statement of the terms(p79) send to a party(the offeree) by a nonher party(the offeror). Otherwise there could be a misunderstanding of an invitation to treat or negotiation which atomic number 18 similar statements. If an offer intends to be lawfully binding, acceptance, by which the offerees gage show their agreement of all the terms of the offer, is needed. Ac ceptance needs to be valid and inform the offeror, while the terms should as same as the previous ones. An a nonher(prenominal) element, i.e. conceiveation, aims to hasten sure the shout do is of value.As defined by Jones (2011), the consideration needs to give benefits to the one, who is suffering a button at the same time. Last but not least, while making an agreement to be licitly enforceable, intention to create legal relations is important. While judging whether it is a binding contract or not, the situation to make this contract needs to be considered, in other words, according to Adams(2012), contract make in a domestic or social environment will not be lawfully bound. Otherwise, if parties are willing to do a commercial agreement, it will be regard as legally bound(Jones, 2011).b) Mr. Martin need to constitute the 750 due to both reasons, based on three cases existed as judicial conditions, which are Stilk v Myrick(1809), Hartley v Ponsonby(1857) and Williams v Rof fey bros(1990)One perspective is that there is an additional value at bottom the new contract, though Mr. Martin and chase the detergent builder were being under a pre-existing contract. Hold that the old contract is not over, due to the other aspect of reason, Mr. martin needs to pay the bare(a) specie in order to bend the loss. These afore-mentioned two points will be justified by cases. Stilk v Myrick(1809) indicates that acaptain promised the seamen extra money if they did successfully return back home.The court finally hold that the captain is not duty to pay the extra money because the old contract is existed as there is not of additional value. While Harley v Ponsonby(1857) was held that the captain needs to pay the extra money, though the situation is similar, because the court consider there is extra value added to the new contract, whilst the old contract is discharged. There are some similarities among these two cases and Mr. Martin s case. Mr. Martin too have an e xisted contract as both parties are agreed to terms of the contract, but comparing to Stilks case, Bob the builder suggest a sub-contract with consider an additional value, which is the value of Martins seafood. Meantime, because of the bad put up and sick crews, Marin need to pay extra money to ensure this additional value is secured, however, this does not fashion the old contract is over because the contract can be fulfilled though it may in all probability be expiry, as Martin has to pay extra 750 in spite of the fee of the previous contract.On the other hand, in Williams v Rpffey bros, the form of addressant consider the loss of defendant if the task is not finished on time, so the defendant do have to pay the claimant the extra money as promised. In this case, Bob the builder consider the benefit of Martin so that they suggest the sub-contractor. As Mr. Marin accepted Bobs counter offer and Bob help him fend off the loss of an amount of seafood. According to the preceden t of Williams case, since new value to considered, Mr. Martin should pay the extra 750. To be concluded, by referring to pre-existing duties, Mr. Martin is obliged to pay the extra 750.c) Mr. Martin needs to pay the full 750, as he violates the rule of part salary of debts. When consider the part payment of debt, it is necessary to fear the rule in Pinnels Case(1602), by which illustrated that part payment is not a sufficient consideration. Because debtors obtains a benefit with giving nothing of value to the creditors. In Marins case, Bob agreed to accept a lower payment(350) in full settlement despite of any excuse Mr. Marin has used. Obviously, Mr. Martin got a benefit of 400, whereas Bob gained nothing. Therefore, Mr. Marin provided no consideration in this case, because being sympathizing Martins bankrupt cannot gain to a greater extent value for Bob. Since two parties failed to achieve benefits of two sides, the promise ofBob is not binding.As a result, Martin has to pay the full 750 as a legal duty. Apart from that, with regard of the classical proud Trees tolerate Case(1947), the principle of promissory estoppel by held that the claimants can acquire the arrears after the end of the war because they have the capacity of claiming the recover the previous hurt before the war started. However, they are prevented to take back the amount of arrears failed to pay because of their previous promise. In High Tress House Case, the promise was make on a real situation where two parties would consider their benefits therefore achieve benefits of both sides. Specifically, the defendants get the right of lease whilst the claimants obtained a number of profits.While in Martins case, no matter whether Mr. Martin have difficulties in his financial situation or not, there is even-tempered no consideration for Bob the builder, although Mr. Martin do have a benefit of saving 400. Since there is no consideration exist, Bob is not obliged to obey the rule of promissory estoppel. To be summarised, by discussing the part payment of debt and promissory estoppel, it is responsible for Mr. Martin to pay the full 750. As Promissory estoppel is on the doctrine of equality.QUESTION 2According to PPP(n.d.), the universal law is the law comprises the custom and judicial precedents of the courts. First feature of common law is that it is not codified, making it is not coming from the comprehensive legislation which is created through Parliament. Apart from EU enforceable law, common law depends on the distributed courts, in where legislative decisions are made. In other words, common law is the certain law made by judges. The decisions have been made in similar cases would expire precedents, which mainly compose the common law. These precedents will be collected and recorded as historical documents or files over time.When coming up a new case, these precedents would be applied in the decision, which means precedents make future decision legally bound. Hie rarchy has to be referred to when talking about the precedent, whereas not every precedent will be used in judging a new case. The precedent made in a higher court can be applied in a lower court, otherwise it will not be applicable. For example, a judicial decision, i.e. precedent, already made in court of supplication should be applicable in high court or county court, but a decision made in countycourt should not obliged to copy for high court. On the other hand, the courts can roll the decisions of those in same level. Last but not least, the common law make contract more freedom, which means there are few regulations to restrict contracts. Basically, everything could be acceptable even if there is super forbidden by law(Adams, 2012 and Jones, 2011).QUESTION 3According to Adams(2012) and Jones(2011), the relationships between agency and principal are fiduciary ones. Basically, federal agents do not have legal right to payment unless the principal authorise the right. Gene rally payment must not be due until the agent have fulfilled the expected result of principal, otherwise, payment can not be used among any certain process on the relationship. However, agent can be regularly paid when agreement express willingness of both sides. Another right of agent is to claim indemnity if there is any expenses incurred when agent conduct the authority, no matter the agent is gratuitous or not. On the other hand, agents do have duty to possess reasonable care and skill, moreover, an agent with schoolmaster or trade skill is expected to preserve the skills as conducting a trade or profession.Then, a contractual agent must carry out the agreed tasks and the whole process of achieving the result should follow the principals orders. Therefore, an agent needs to perform his duties himself. The performance of the duties cannot be delegated to any third party. Likewise, the agent is required to be accountable for any profits arising from the performance of the duties and to record the benefits of exercises of authority. Besides, an agent has duty to avoid the possibility of being conflict of interest without principals permit, though agent must not sell his own property or shares to principal. Last but not least, an agent not sole(prenominal) cannot take any form of bribe, but also cannot make secret profit, whereby the principal can put away the agent and make the contract voidable for fraud.In conclusion, case study has been discussed by applying the related law knowledge in terms of consideration of contract particularly. Therefore, basic explanation of common law and, duties and rights within agency relationship are demonstrated.BibliographyAdams, A (2012), Law for business students(7th ed), London Pearson Education Limited. Public closed-door partnership(n.d.), Key features of common law or civil law systems, Available at http//ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/legislation-regulation/framework-assessment/legal-systems/common-v s-civil-law. (Assessed 22 February 2014) Jones, L (2011), Introduction to Business Law, New York Oxford University Press. Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947) KB 130, 44, 53, 110, 119, 595 Hartley v Ponsonby(1875) 7 EL BL 872, 106Pinnels Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117, 108, 109, 117, 595Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317, 106, 107, 589Williams v Roffey Bros (1990) 1 ALL ER 512 CA, 107-109, 118, 119