Business Law For Domestic Agreement Is An Essay. (54 Characters)

Intention to be Legally Bound in a Contract

Discuss about the Business Law for Domestic Agreement.

The issue that has been found in this case is that Charlie and Ali were not legally bound. Charlie and Ali were not legally bound because it was identified that they both were brother and sister. However, they both are domestically related to each other but it has also been identified that they had a formal contractual agreement between them.

In the formation of a contract, the essential element is the intention to be legal bound. The term legally bound is important in a contract but if it is not found then it is a domestic agreement. Domestic agreement means agreement between family members or friends. There are several ways that court has found out to develop and identify the intention of legal bound.If there is a written agreement then the intention to legal bound is present.

There are certain cases that is relevant to the above mentioned case. As per the first case named Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, it has been said that Mr. Balfour was an engineer and he lived with his wife in Ceylon. This couple came back to England in 1915 and there Mrs. Balfour developed arthritis and it was advised by the doctor that she would be staying in England as this disease might grow in Ceylon. Mr. Balfour had to return back to his work and he has orally promised her that he would send 30 pounds every month to her. However, he refused to do so and his wife sued him for not keeping up his promise. The judgment of the court held that no enforceable agreement was there as it was just an oral agreement or domestic agreement between the husband and the wife.

In another case Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72, it was found out that the plaintiff (Todd) won this case against the defendant (Nicole) as Nicole sent a letter to Todd to invite her to her place to stay. It was clear that her intention was to make legal relation. However an argument was created between them. After the argument Nicole did not want Todd to stay over there but she cannot tell her to leave as a domestic contract was recognized as the legal presumption is challenged and it will be administered by contract law.

Yes, Ali will be winning this case as there was a written contract made between Ali and Charlie, which Charlie had violated, and as they both were lawfully bound Charlie will have to have the penalties for the violation of the contract under the Act. Although the agreement between Charlie and Ali was domestic in nature the principles of the Todd v Nicol case will be applicable and the presumption of no intention being present in a domestic agreement would be rebutted as they had a written agreement between them which is an evidence that they wanted to get into a legal relationship.

Relevant Cases for Intention in Domestic Agreements

The issue that has been identified in this case is whether Nick is liable to pay to the police that is based on the consideration’s principles of the services that has been given by the police.

One of the most important element of contract is consideration. The validity of the consideration is through the rules that is given by common law. The first rule is that when a consideration is made by a police officer to guard him is already a public duty and that consideration will not be regarded as consideration. There are certain exceptions where the law provides duty has exceeded then it would be regarded as a valid consideration.

According to the case Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58, it is explained that it is an English Contract Law on the subject of consideration. There was a contract made between Stilk and Myrick which stated that Stilk wants to work in a ship that was owned by Myrick with the monthly salary of 5 pounds and he promises to work but not on emergencies. As the ship docked, two men were deserted and as they could not find the replacement of the captain who promised to pay those two men their wages. As these people arrived home they were refused to pay them as they fulfilled their duty of the crewmen who were missing. The judgment was held that the agreement is void of consideration. Another case was Ward v Byham [1956]. It was explained that an unmarried couple got separated with a child. The husband had promised his wife to pay 1 pound per week only if the mother takes care of the child properly. Therefore, the judgment of the court held that it is already the duty of the mother to take care of the child and this promise was the public interest.

No, Nick will not be winning this particular case which is in opposition to the police officer, even where it is the duty of the police to safeguard him at that point of time. The principles of the Stilk v Myrick case will ensure that the police officer is not bound to get the extra money, however if the principles of the Ward v Byham case is applied it can be stated that where the police had provided extra effort by staying at night to guard Nick this would be an additional effort and a valid contract will be established. Under the valid contract Nick is liable to pay the police.

Consideration in a Contract

As per the rule of part payment of debts, when a part of debt is paid as settlement then it is not a consideration that is valid as law. However, if this payment of debt is complemented with any other mode of payment that can be done before the due date is regarded as a valid consideration.

According to Pinnel’s case (1602) 77 ER 237 it has been noticed that a part payment has been done. The judgment of the court held that it can only be considered as a valid consideration when the part of debt has been paid and the rest can be paid by an additional fixture before the due date. Another case named Foakes v Beer [1881–5] All ER Rep 106 has the same issue regarding this above mentioned case.

No, Helen will not be able to win this case over Mike, as Mike had already cleared the partial payment of the debt on time and also repaired the steering of Helen’s car which according to the agreement made between them clears the debt and therefore, is a valid consideration.

Whether the terms of the unsigned documents are considered as the contractual terms or not and it also depends on the reasonable notice in consideration with those terms has been given or not. When the reasonable notice is given then those terms is given in the contract. Some elements have been provided to check whether the notice is rational or not. These mentioned terms comprises of the look of the document that helps it to be a contract and these terms are contained in a document are unusual or whether any contradictory statement is made. In this same manner the terms can be included through notice.

According to the case Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes ([1988] 1 All ER 348 there are terms that are being unusual. The court held the judgment that the terms of the contractual document are not in relation to what it is in the present terms of a contract. Then these terms must be taken into the notice of another party so that it gets included in the contract.

No, the DVD shop owner will not win this case over Lizzie. There was a sign that was seen by Lizzie that contained many terms of contract. There was one term in the contract which stated that Lizzie will be getting access to those DVD’s for 100$ for 3 months. She got into this contract based on these terms. Due to her illness she could not return the DVD. When she returned to the shop to give the DVD she was said that the terms that stated one DVD is kept for more than one night then she has to pay a penalty of $20. However, the normal fine was $5. As per the above mentioned case Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes case these terms must be brought in the notice of Lizzie so that it can be included. Therefore, the term cannot be incorporated.

Relevant Cases for Consideration

The issue in this case is that whether the exclusion clause is valid or not between dry cleaners and Tori.

If one party is able to exclude or limit their liability in contract is known as an exclusion contract. The inclusion and incorporation of the terms of contract is done when the exclusion contract is valid or not. If the document has some misrepresentation and fraudulent terms then also the terms are legally binding when the document is being signed.

According to the case L'Estrange V Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 it has been stated that the plaintiff has signed a document that contains fine prints. There was an exclusion clause about the liability of the seller.

According to another case of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805, the plaintiff got her wedding dress to get dry cleaned in a laundry whose owner was the defendant. A receipt was signed by the plaintiff that included an exclusion clause. These clause had been misrepresented as it was not binding. The agent of the laundry cleared that there was no special terms that was present in the receipt. In the above mentioned case it had been stated by court that there was no misrepresentation and fraud as the binding of contract.

No, Tori will not be winning this case if any sort of claim is seen to be filed by her. As per the case of L'Estrange V Graucob can  be said that there was a contract between the dry cleaners and Tori. It was been given that a document was signed by Tori which almost seemed to be like a regular receipt and an agreement. Tori's dress was stained. There was a restriction the liability of dry cleaners which the document has. As stated in the case there was no misrepresentation that has been done by the dry cleaners. Thus where the contract was signed the terms are binding even where she did not read them.

According to Section 19 of the goods Act 1958 there are some provisions which states that there are no implied conditions which is related to the goods’ sale. There is an exception in the buying of the goods buy a person expressly or implication which helps to signify the seller about these goods must be bought for some specific work. The knowledge of the seller helps to buy those goods that contains a condition that is implied in a contract which states that the goods must be perfectly fine.

According to the case of David Jones v Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110 the knowledge of the seller helps the buyer to buy those goods where the buyer signifies the seller that these goods are being bought for a purpose. There is a breach of condition that is implied which states that the goods were not fit for that particular purpose. The machine was also seen to be not working in the desired way it was slow and the glass too was about to break.

Yes, there is high chance that Sanders will be winning this case over Mr. Smith. There are chances of Sandra to win this case against Mr. Smith. Santa is relied on the knowledge of Mr. Smith to buy the goods and signifies Mr. Smith that she is buying those goods for the specific work. It was said please ensure that the copier will not work slow as she was wanting for a fast copier. The implied condition was breached because the copier was working slowly.

References

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805

David Jones v Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110

Foakes v Beer [1881–5] All ER Rep 106

Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes ([1988] 1 All ER 348

L'Estrange V Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394

Pinnel’s case (1602) 77 ER 237

Stilk v Myrick [1809] EWHC KB J58

Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72

Ward v Byham [1956]