The issue that existed between Ian and Ben is in regards to an invitation that was sent by Ben to Ian for taking astronomy in Ben’s class for $ 1000 during June 1st. Initially Ian turned down the offer but later confirmed through mail which went to the spam folder of Ben and thus Ben was unaware thereby asking Ian to leave.
Ian is witnessed to claim for breach of contract against Ben. There are certain rules pertaining to the breach of contract. They are as follows:
- If the promisor is not able to conduct the contractual obligation concerning the available time period thus hampering the performance of the obligation (Chen et al., 2008)
- If the obligated contract is not maintained or honoured
Moreover the outcomes pertaining to breach of contract must rest on the specific situations of a case. There is also a certain consequence related to any breach of contract and that is the promisee is allowed to assess for damages. The promisee is further provided with the right if the promisor has breached. The right thus discussed is independent of the proof in regards to loss as well as damage, however, if this proof is not available then the recovery right gets restricted concerning nominal damages (Restubog et al., 2010).
It is noted that in Australia the deal hypothesis wins within which the trading of guarantees, alluded to the Latin expression “quid pro pro” is considered to be a fundamental component. Thus a guarantee formed under seal has been imposed concerning the old activity in regards to the contract and has gradually transformed as the current law in connection to deeds. Relating to the case, it is noted that Ben and Ian never formed any enforceable contract as they only exchanged mail messages. The applicability of the contract rests upon the aspect that every contract possesses ‘a proper law’. The parties pertaining to the contract might agree along with the law that is held applicable to the agreement. However, this further signifies that any contract is dominated through a specific legal framework, whether it is the “English law, Sharia law” and others that render the contract a sort of irrevocable force mentioned Rowan, (2012). The courts generally render effect to any sort of demonstration or any implicit law options though the dominion opted for might not hold any objective connection concerning the parties as well as their agreement. However, in this case, there lies no legal contract between the two parties Ben and Ian as they simply exchanged mails and letters with each other.
There are little chances of Ian succeeding this case due to certain reasons. First of all, there was no sort of official contract formed between both Ian and Ben. According to the case study, Ben sent an invitation letter asking Ian to take the astronomy class in June 1st. Initially Ian turned down the offer but later, accepted the invitation thus confirming through an email message which unknowingly went to Ben’s spam folder. Therefore Ben is totally unaware regarding the event (Pearce & Halson, 2008).
The issue in regards to Sharon and Ben is that after Ian turned down the offer and invitation of Ben, he approached Sharon as the suitable candidate who could take his astronomy class during June 1st. However, Sharon accepted his offer the next day. All the communication took place through emails. It was not known to Ben that Sharon possessed expertise in astrology as the staff list placed her name within the list of astronomy experts. Hence, while Ben realized he said Sharon that he would not provide her any money.
There are certain rules pertaining to the breach of contract concerning the case of Ben and Sharon. Firstly considering the scope as well as the content, a contract is termed to be enforceable pertaining to the attributes such as the contract privity, terms of the contract, its classification as well as exclusion clauses. However, it is necessary that within a contract, there should be an agreement, consideration as well as clear intent for the formation of legal relations that both the parties look forward to obligate (Chen-Wishart, 2012). Generally the contracts end naturally while both the parties engaged within the contract accomplish their responsibilities. Again on the contrary, a contract might also be ended through the outcome of breach of contract brought upon by one of the parties which ultimately result in the termination of the contract. In the case of Ben and Sharon, it was an agreement that took place through email exchanges. Certainly it is a contract as long as there is agreement, legal intention and other considerations to it. Whether Sharon will succeed with her claim will be proved in the later stages (Adams & Nehme, 2011).
During any breach of contract, it is noted that the promisee is exposed to certain remedies as they are allowed damages considering the promisee’s rights. Parties are allowed to form provision pertaining to the contracts which inculcates the payment in regards to the liquidated amount upon breach. Damages are entitled to the non breaching party considering their rights (Graw, 2012). Thus damages are viewed as the “substitute for performance”. These damages are such created that they place the plaintiff in such a situation that they might have faced while they accomplished the contract. However, in this case it is noticed that Ben was unaware of the fact that Sharon possessed her expertise in astrology as her name was placed in the astronomy segment by the staff list. On the other hand, Sharon did not consider the matter and remained unaware to the situation that the staff list has placed her name in the astronomy expertise section. Hence, here breach of contract might not be formulated due to the misinterpretation and misunderstanding that took place due to the staff list entry (Macleod, 2009).
It might be concluded that the conditions and the rules required for any breach of contract to take place gets nullified in this case. The rules that govern the breach of contract are that in any case if any one of the parties fails to accomplish the certain obligation, then the other party bears the right to bring upon or claim for breach of contract (Ramsay, 2012). The applications are also like the promisor who failed to fulfil the obligation might bear the consequences thereby bearing the damages that can also be in the liquidated amount. However, Ben possesses the defence like he looked for astronomy expertise where it is the staff list that comprised misleading information. Therefore, Sharon’s success over her claims appears to be vague.
The issues relating to this case is that Gordon first advertised for selling a car. It was Mary who showed interest for buying the car but stated that she would not be able to pay instantly but would like to pay next week. On the other hand, she has formed her mind to take the car from him. While Gordon opposed, she reacted vehemently thereby stating that she is the Lord Mayor of Melbourne and thus let her take the car and never got his money, while later saw the car’s advertisement through Cheng, a seller (Anson et al., 2010).
In this case, presently Cheng is the trader and Gordon is the buyer. There are certain steps to claim that Gordon will certainly follow to buy the car. Firstly, there has certainly been the express of contract between Mary and Gordon which Mary was not able to fulfil as she could not pay the money. Therefore there has been a breach of contract between the two parties (Rowan, 2012).
Legal actions must be taken by Gordon pertaining to fraudulent activities of Mary as she did not fulfil the express contract thus causing a breach of contract. Thus Gordon must do fraud reporting thereby making a complaint against Mary who has failed to pay the money and has dishonestly sold the car to Cheng. After that, investigation as well as policing must be conducted to attain the desired results. Investigation might take place through the incorporation of computer networks pertaining to looping through diverse websites. There are other criteria which require to be fulfilled such as the completion of the vehicle license transfer form with the seller. The second part comprises getting the license papers as well as immobiliser information. There is another aspect which entails the completion of declaration form and then is the submitting and proof identification thereby paying the vehicle license duty and transfer fee. All these processes have not been fulfilled with Mary and must be scrutinized under fraudulent activity (Restubog et al., 2008).
Gordon stands a better claim to the car than Cheng because officially it is Gordon’s car. All the paper, car licenses, immobiliser information and others lie with Gordon. Cheng in this situation certainly does not stand any chance as how Cheng received the car and how Cheng fulfilled the buying process pertaining to legal paper works of the car appears to be a big question (McKendrick, 2014).
Adams, M., & Nehme, M. (2011). Consumer Law: No New Specific Legislation Required to Deal with'Greenwashing'. Keeping good companies, 63(7), 419.
Anson, W. R., Beatson, J., Burrows, A. S., & Cartwright, J. (2010). Anson's law of contract. Oxford University Press.
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., & Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1104.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach: A dual perspective. Journal of Organizational behavior, 29(5), 527-548.
Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract law. Oxford University Press.
Graw, S. (2012). An introduction to the law of contract. Thomson Reuters.
Macleod, J. (2009). Consumer sales law: the law relating to consumer sales and financing of goods. Routledge.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Pearce, D., & Halson, R. (2008). Damages for breach of contract: Compensation, Restitution and vindication. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 73-98.
Ramsay, I. (2012). Consumer law and policy: Text and materials on regulating consumer markets. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., Tang, R. L., & Krebs, S. A. (2010). Investigating the moderating effects of leader–member exchange in the psychological contract breach–employee performance relationship: A test of two competing perspectives. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 422-437.
Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behaviour: Insights from the group value model. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1377-1400.
Rowan, S. (2012). Remedies for breach of contract: a comparative analysis of the protection of performance. Oxford University Press on Demand.