Legal Issues In Breach Of Contract, Unilateral Contract, Intention Of Legal Relationship, And Exclusion Clause

Emma is a university student who works as a gardener on weekends for extra income. On Wednesday Emma agrees to mow Bill’s front and back yard on Saturday morning for $50. On Friday night she rings Bill and tells him that she has had a recurrence of a bad back and she isn’t sure she will be able to mow his yard. Bill is desperate to get the job done because he is holding a big garden party on Saturday afternoon so promises to pay Emma an additional $70 if she will do the job. Emma decides that the money is too good to pass up so she agrees to undertake the mowing.  After completing the job Bill hands Emma $50 telling her that that was all he was contractually required to pay. 

a) What is/are the issue/s you need to consider? 

b) What is/are the relevant legal rule/s relating to this problem? 

c) What is/are the main case/s related to this problem?

d) Based on this information, if Emma sues Bill for breach of contract, will she win in court? What is your answer – yes? or no?
Explain your answer.

The legal rule that can be applied in this case for the purpose of deciding the above-mentioned issues to see if the existing contractual duty can be treated as a valid consideration that can support the promise made by the other party to be extra money.

The main case that is related with the facts of the present question is Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. (1990).

Therefore in the present case, the Emma decides to sue Bill for the breach of contract, it is likely that Emma may not win in the court. The reason is that in this case Emma was already bound by her contractual duty to mow the lawn of Bill for a price of $50. Hence, even if Bill had promised to be extra $70 to Emma, in return of this promise, no consideration has been provided by Emma. Due to this reason, Emma is not likely to win in the court if she decides to sue Bill for the breach of contract.  

The issue in this case is if the elements required for the formation of a valid contract are present or not. Hence, it has to be seen if the elements of offer and acceptance are present in this case and if PC Smith can enforce the promise made by Mrs. Rich to give a reward to any person who helped her get the ring back.

The relevant legal rule applicable in case of this problem deals with a unilateral contract. It has to be seen if the announcement made by Mrs. Rich to give a reward was an offer and if such an offer was capable of being accepted.

The main case related with the unilateral contract or an offer made to the whole world is that of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892). It has been mentioned in this case that the statement made in an advertisement can be a mere puff, but if a clear promissory intention to be legally bound by the terms of the offer, it may amount to a unilateral offer. A unilateral contract is an enforceable contract that is created as a result of an offer made to the whole world and which can be accepted by performance.

In the present case, if PC Smith decides to sue Mrs. Rich for the reward, he is likely to win in the court. In this case, a unilateral offer has been made by Mrs. Rich to give a reward to any person who helps her get her rings back. PC Smith was aware of this offer. Therefore it can be said in this case than the elements of offer and acceptance is present. An offer has been made to the whole world by Mrs. Smith. This often couldn't have been accepted by any person who performed the condition mentioned in the offered on in other words, who helped her in getting her rings back. As in the present case, PC Smith had apprehended the thief and recovered the diamond rings of Mrs. Rich, he is entitled to the reward announced by Mrs. Rich. Therefore if PC Smith decides to sue Mrs. Rich for the recovery of the reward, he is likely to win in the court.

Issue and Relevant Legal Rules in the First Case

The issue in this case is if Mary can enforce the promises made by Tim according to which he had promised to pay a weekly allowance off $500 to Mary. As Mary did not want to live in the USA, Tim agreed that she may return to Australia and he will provide her with a weekly allowance of $500. However after three months of Mary returning to Australia, Tim stopped paying this allowance. After one year, Mary divorced Tim and brought a suit against Tim for the recovery of the promised amount. Therefore the issue is if the promise made by Tim to pay a weekly allowance of $500 to Mary can be enforced by her in a court of law.

The relevant legal rule that is applicable in this question is if the parties had the intention of entering into a legal relationship. Among other essential elements, it is also necessary for creating a valid contract that the parties should have the intention of entering a legal relationship. This requirement has been introduced by the contract law to sift out the cases in which any action by the court will not be appropriate. For instance, if two friends have decided to meet at the local pub on the Saturday evening, a moral duty may be present on part of the friends to honor this agreement, but it cannot be said in this case that the friends are also legally bound to do so. The reason behind this position of law is that generally the parties to such agreements do not have the intention to be legally bound by the agreement and the law also follows the wishes of the parties in this regard. For the purpose of deciding if an agreement was legally binding and if the parties at the intention of creating regulations, a distinction has been drawn by the law between the domestic and social agreements and the agreements that have been created by the parties in commercial context.

A leading case related with the rights of the present question is that of Balfour v Balfour (1919). In this case, husband was working overseas, and he agreed to send maintenance payment to his wife. When the agreement was created, the couple was happily married. However, later on, their relationship turned sour and as a result, the husband stopped sending the money. Under these circumstances, the wife wanted to enforce this agreement against the husband. However, while deciding the case the court arrived at the conclusion that this agreement was purely a domestic arrangement. As a result, it can be presumed in this case that it was not the intention of the parties that they would be legally bound by the agreement.

Hence, in the present case if Mary decides to sue Tom for the breach of contract under the common law and wants to recover the maintenance amount, she is not likely to win in the court. The reason is that in this case, it can be said that the agreement was purely a domestic agreement. As a result, it can be presumed that it was not the intention of the parties to enter into a legal relationship and make the promise made under the contract, legally enforceable in her we are, and for you and him. Therefore, Mary is not likely to win in the court.

Main Case in the First Case

The issue in this case is if the exclusion clause mentioned at the back of the parking ticket can be considered as a part of the contract and as a result, the owners of the car park can be held liable to pay damages to Guy for the damage that was caused to his car in the car park by another car. Therefore the issue in this case is related with the application of the exclusion clause.

the law provides that an exclusion clause is a term of the contract through which one party tries to limit or restrict its liability or regulate the right of the other party to claim damages in case of a breach of contract or for negligence. In this regard, the law provides that in order to be effective, the exclusion clauses should be properly incorporated in the contract. An exclusion clause is considered to have been properly included in the contract gives such a clause has been brought to the notice of the other party before or while entering into the contract.

A major case related with the effects of this question is that of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971). In this case, the claimant has suffered injuries in a car park, partly due to the negligence of the defendant. In this case, a ticket had been given to the claimant while entering the car park after the claimant had put money in a machine. On this ticket, it was mentioned that the parking contract was being created subject to the terms and conditions that have been displayed inside the car park. According to one of these terms, the liability of the defendant for personal injuries arising due to negligence had been excluded. Therefore the question before the court was to see if this term has been included in the contract or in other words, if the attention of the claimant had been brought by the defendant towards this term before or while entering into the contract. It was decided by the court that the machine amounted to the offer. The acceptance was made by the claimant when he had put money into the machine. The ticket had been dispensed after the acceptance has taken place and as a result, the clause displayed inside the car park cannot be treated to have been incorporated in the contract.

On the basis of the above-mentioned information, if Guy decides to sue the owners of the car park for the breach of contract, he is likely to win in the court. In the present case also, the parking ticket was given to Guy only after he had paid the parking fee of $30. Moreover, the exclusion clause has been mentioned as the back of the parking ticket. Consequently, it cannot be said in this case that the exclusion clause is a part of the contract and therefore NRL cannot rely on this exclusion clause. Hence, Guy will win if he moves a court of law for compensation.

The issue in this case is if the damage caused by an elephant that had escaped from a nearby circus can be treated as an act for which damage may be claimed by Guy from NRL.

The legal rule that can be applied in the present case is that any natural disaster that is outside human control, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the damage caused by such an act.

An important case dealing with the situation in the present question is that of Reylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1.

On the basis of the present information, it can be said that the Guy decides to sue NRL for the breach of contract and the damage caused to his car by the elephant which had escaped from a nearby circus, Guy is not likely to win in the court. The reason is that in this case NRL cannot be held liable for the breach of contract and there is no negligence on the part of NRL, which may have resulted in the damage.

In the present case, the statement made by the seller appears to be a mere puff. There is no seriousness in the statement due to which the other party may rely on such a statement.

In the present case, a statement has been made by a car salesman that the car has no rust. At the same time, the reply of the virus suggests that the buyer is going to rely on this statement and had been induced by this statement to enter the contract and purchase the car. As a result, this statement can be treated as a term of the contract. A statement is considered as a term of the contract when the other party has relied on such a statement. In case of a breach of a term of the contract, remedies including the revocation of the contract and damages may be available to the other party.

In this case, the seller had made a statement that the sound system is brand-new. However, the buyer does not rely on this statement and tells the seller that he will think about the offer. Therefore, in this case, it can be said that the statement made by the seller regarding the sound system being brand-new is merely a representation.

References

Case Law

Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] 2 WLR 1153

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585

Reylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1