Sources of Law in the UK: essay.

Acts of Parliament as a Primary Legislation

1. a) The Act of Parliament is considered to act as a primary legislation in the United Kingdom and these are the texts of law which are passed by the legislative body of a jurisdiction. It is frequently passed by a parliament or the council. Once a bill is debated and approved it is read by each house of the Parliament and then upon agreement it is sent for Royal Assent. After the Royal Assent is received it becomes a law and is known as an act. This acts as a source of law because the procedure is deliberated upon through a number of readings. It had originated from the time the Parliamentary system was in effect. It is significant because it is introduced for protecting and safeguarding the rights of the citizens. The Act of Parliament is used as a source of law because the laws are enacted through the law-making body and it has the power of overruling the common law or the judge made laws.

b) The case laws act as judicial precedents and it is the principal source of law which forms precedents in the English legal system and it is supposed to be published in the law reports. The judgments provided by the judges are supposed to be important as it is used as a reference for the future cases. It is significant because it had originated from the common law system and UK is considered to be a common law country where the judgments are supposed to be specifically essential as the principle of precedent is implemented through the common law system. Therefore, the origination is well-thought out to be an important aspect because the case laws bind the parties through the legal principles. It is deemed to be a source of law because the decision is determined through a disputed point of law and the senior court records the decision as it is known as the court of record. This particular source of law is used for changing as well as clarifying the law and it is used for setting the precedent through other courts as it is bound to follow and apply other cases in future.

2. According to the author, it can be understood that, a judicial precedent is well-thought out to be the source of law that creates law for the judges through the past decisions. Therefore, it is binding through the previous decision as such is followed in the future cases. However, stare decisis is supposed to imply the standing by of the decisions as it is strictly a synonym for precedent. It is supposed to be offering a history of judicial decision and this forms the basis of evaluation for future cases. An advantage of the doctrine of stare decisis is considered to be the fact that it empowers the judges to diminish the ambiguity or uncertainty as these are supposed to be associated with making decisions. However, in comparison to such, judicial precedents are supposed to assist in preparing new statutory laws that would adjust accordingly through the changing conditions of the society. As per the analysis, it can be stated that the judicial precedents are also supposed to assist the court system by saving time on the future cases as it increases the convenience because the question once asked is settled. However, in comparison to such, the principle of stare decisis motivates and encourages the judges to refer to the past decisions as a form of reference and it helps the courts decide the challenging cases more efficiently. Nevertheless, it can be stated that, the doctrine of stare decisis lacks flexibility as well as inability through the adaptation of changing moral and this is considered to be due to the socio-economic as well as political realities as such are resulting from the static body of law. However, through comparison, it can be noted that the judicial precedent is supposed to set a standard to which the judges at times cannot adhere and it is deemed to be rigid as well as complex, confusing and at times unjustifiable. The judges are considered to disregard precedents if a party can show that the case referred to earlier was incorrectly decided as it differed in some significant way from the current case.

Case Law and Judicial Precedents

3. There are various ways in which an offer can be revoked or terminated in contract. An offer is supposed to be terminated through revocation where the offer is withdrawn by the offeror and it can be understood through the case of Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148. However, revocation can only take place before the acceptance of the offer and it needs to be communicated directly or indirectly by the offeror. An offer can also be rejected when an offeree communicates disinterest through rejection to the offeror. It can be observed through the case of Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90. An offer can be terminated through the lapse of time where it would be unrealistic to accept the offer after arbitrary delay of the offeree. It can be perceived through the case of Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109. Conditional offer is also considered to be a way in which an offer can be terminated as the offer that is expressly stated is conditional and due to the unfulfilled or partial condition cannot be accepted. It can be enumerated through the case of Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 WLR 1184. The offer can also be terminated through the death of either the offeror or the offeree as the right to accept an ordinary offer is not supposed to be transferable. It can be elucidated through the instance or event of Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463. It can be understood that once an offer is accepted the contract is formed. However, if the acceptance is not proper or the offeree is silent about the offer then the offer can be terminated as per the case or event of Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35. A change in law can make a potential contract illegal and due to such, it can terminate the offer as well. Therefore, an offer can be terminated on the basis of illegality.

The issue to be determined through the following scenario is whether there had been a valid offer and acceptance between Mary, Hannah and the gym Southbank Leisure Centre.

A contract is considered to be an arrangement that gives rise to obligations which are supposed to be implemented and enforced or recognized by law. The offer is deemed to act as one of the essential elements for a contract to be enforceable as it is an expression of willingness to create a contract through specified terms. It can be highlighted through the case of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27. This is deemed to be an objective manifestation that needs to have the intention clear of the offeror as such would be bound through the acceptance of the other party. An offer can be made expressly or through way of conduct and it needs to be distinguished or differentiated from the invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is supposed to be when a person invites or initiates the other person to make an offer through advertisements among other things. It can be elucidated through the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. Therefore, to detect and identify whether a declaration is an offer or an invitation to treat is supposed to be dependent upon the intent with which it is made. The invitation to treat might not be made with the intention of binding the offeror and the offeree in a contract but it would be binding as soon as there is acceptance and such is communicated to both the offeror and the offeree. Therefore, it can be understood through the milestone case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 2 QB 256. On the other hand, acceptance needs to be final as well as unqualified expression of assent as such would be determining the terms of the offer. There must be an neutral manifestation of the intention by the recipient as it creates bindingness between the parties. An offer can be accepted through explicit communication or by conduct but it does not have any legal effect until and unless the offeror is aware of it. It can be elaborated through the case of Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327.

Understanding Stare decisis in UK Legal System

It can be determined through the analysis of the scenario that; the gym had made an invitation to treat and it was not a binding offer but an initiation for making an offer. However, when Hannah and Mary went to the gym with their address proofs on 30th January, they made the offer of being a member of the gym and such was accepted by the gym manager who was an agent of the gym. Therefore, there was a valid acceptance before the 31st of January and due to such the offer and acceptance would be binding as the invitation to treat had been differentiated from the offer. Mary and Hannah had fulfilled the criteria of valid offer and acceptance as per the contract and due to such the bindingness would be prevalent.

Conclusion

Therefore, in conclusion, it can be stated that, there had been a valid offer and acceptance between Mary, Hannah and the gym Southbank Leisure Centre.

The issue to be determined is whether there had been an intention to create legal relations and could such be applied to explain Mary’s situation.

An agreement is supposed to be supported by the intention to create legal relations as such is one of the essential elements of contract which needs to be fulfilled in order to make the contract binding. In simplest form, it can be stated that the phrase implies that the parties need to have the intention of entering into legally binding arrangements where the rights and the obligations would be enforceable. It can be understood through the case of Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571. The question as to whether there had been any intention during the negotiations are something that would have to be determined and analyzed as the doctrine assumes that the parties need to legally enforce relations with the intentions to create binding relations. It can be implemented through the case of Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928.

From the analysis of the scenario, it can be understood that the phrase ‘intention to create legal relations’ would be applicable as the offer had been initiated, made and accepted. However, it was not necessarily a contract but an agreement as the element of the intention needed to be fulfilled. It can be applied to explain Mary’s situation because the intention of the parties needed to be evident and there needed to be evidence of the intention to make it a subject to the law of contract. In this scenario, the evidence of the intention was found through the acceptance by the manager of the company on 30th January where it had been explicitly communicated that the membership forms needed to be filled out and signed by Mary and Hannah and it needed to include the direct debit form. The booking for free induction had also been done.

Conclusion

Therefore, to conclude, the intention was present and evident and can be explained in case of Mary’s situation.

The issue to be determined is whether the consideration given to Mary was of equal value.

Termination of an Offer in Contract Law

The consideration is one of the essential elements of the contract and it is for a promise that needed to be given in return for another promise. This also includes the performance of the obligations of the contract. Therefore, the promise needs to be provided with the consideration and it needs to be of equal value which has been set forth in the contract. It can be deliberated upon through the case of Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851.

It can be determined through the scenario that, the consideration in this case had to be of equal value and such was not given to Mary as she had not received any f the benefits that had been set forth in the terms and conditions of the contract. She had not received the free bags which were promise although she had forgotten about it. As per the terms and conditions she should have received it regardless of whether she remembered it or not.

Conclusion

Therefore, in conclusion, she had not received the consideration as promised which was of equal value.

Whether there are any remedies available to Mary against Southbank Leisure Centre for the breach of contract and what are the remedies that can be imposed by the court for such breach.

In order to bring an action for breach of contract claim the aggrieved or the non-breaching party needs to show that there has been adequate causation amid the breach and there have been losses suffered due to such breach. The breach also needs to be effective or dominant due to the cause of loss. The causation needs to be made complex through a third party who is superseding in the act or the other event. Therefore, if due to such a breach takes place, then the harm suffered would break the chain of causation as per the case of Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673.

If a party to a valid contract is not considered to be conforming with a specific term, then such is considered to amount to breach as the breach takes place when an innocent party is permitted to bring a claim through breach in order to seek compensation as such is usually in the form of damages. There are remedies to the termination for breach under English law where the aggrieved party has the right to automatically terminate the contract. It can be demonstrated through the case of Planche v Colburn [1831] EWHC KB J56. However, a repudiatory breach is considered to permit the aggrieved party to treat the contract as a termination. They would also be liable to damages in the form of compensation. In case of anticipatory breach, the party had to indicate either by words or by conduct that the obligations would not be performed and this would let the non-breaching party terminate the contract.

It can be understood through the analysis of the scenario that, due to the formation of a valid contract, the gym or Southbank Leisure Centre would have to pay for breach due to its non-performance of the obligations set forth in the contract. Therefore, Mary has the authority to terminate the contract in case of a breach as such is a remedy that is available to her and along with such, she would also be liable for getting compensation for the damages she suffered or the financial loss she suffered due to the breach of the contract. The value of the compensation would be determined by the court.

Conclusion

Thus, to conclude, it can be stated that, there are remedies in the manner of termination of contract available to Mary against Southbank Leisure Centre for the breach of contract and the value of compensation for the losses suffered by Mary would be determined by the court for the breach.

References

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571.

Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 2 QB 256.

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463.

Entores v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327.

Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35.

Financings Ltd v Stimson [1962] 1 WLR 1184.

Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27.

Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90.

Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204.

Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148.