Unit 5 Aspect of Contract Law in Business Assignment Merit Copy
Introduction
This Unit 5 Aspect of Contract Law in Business Assignment Merit Copy includes several tort and contract features, as well as the repercussions of contract violations and different tort defences. Following an analysis of the many facets of law and tort, the application of the same has been used in a number of case studies, which makes understanding extremely simple and the applicability of the same even more straightforward and plain.
Task 1
Meaning of contract
“A contract is a promise or a series of promises for which the law establishes a remedy or whose fulfilment the law in some manner deems obligatory” (lexinter.net, n.d).
The following terms must be included in a contract in order for it to be deemed valid: offer, acceptance, consideration, and a purpose to establish a binding employment connection (Small Business Development Corporation, 2014).
Offer- An offer is a declaration of one’s intention to enter into a contract in such a way as to persuade the other party that his agreement to it is desired and will bring about its conclusion (lexinter.net, n.d).
An acceptance is an unequivocal consent to all of the terms of the offer (Small Business Development Corporation, 2014).
A valuable consideration in the legal sense may include either a right, interest, profit, or advantage accruing to one party or any forbearance, harm, loss, or obligation taken on by the other party (Currie v Misa, 1875).
The most crucial component of a contract is the intent to establish a legal relationship, which is the most fundamental part. The conditions of the contract must be the result of a legal intention between the parties. In domestic and social contracts, the court presumes that the party does not have legal intention, as was established in the case of Balfour v. Balfour (1919), unless this assumption is refuted by contrary evidence, as was established in the case of Merritt v. Merritt (1970).
Additionally, the courts have established a separate presumption in commercial contracts that the parties intend to create a legal connection, as was found in the case of Edwards v. Skyways Ltd. (1964), and this presumption can be disproven by opposite evidence, as in the case of (Ferrera v Littlewoods pools , 1998).
Factors that would prevent a contract from being formed include: The individual engaging into the contract must have the legal ability, such as a minor, in order for them to be legally bound by it; otherwise, the contract is impaired, or should we say vitiated. The following reasons can also invalidate a contract: coercion, error, unconscionability, misrepresentation, and undue influence (Spark, 2013).
Task 2
Case study 2
In the current situation, the offer is made via the notice, and the acceptance is made by taking the chair.
50p per hour for the chair is the consideration in the current scenario.
Intention of the parties in the current case: Although this is a social contract, the sale and purchase of the chair shows that it is a business transaction, and as a result, the parties do intend to establish a legal relationship. Therefore, the entire contract is legal under business law because it contains all required contract parts, but it does not have the exclusion clause that states that “No obligation is accepted for any harm or injury caused by the failure of any hired equipment.” Exclusion clause: The exclusion clause is the subject of the current case. An unreasonable condition known as a “exclusion clause” limits or excludes a party’s liability for breach of any contract (Insite Law, 2014). Only if the following conditions are met does a contract contain an exclusion clause:
When a contract is formed, the term is brought to the other party’s attention (Olley v Marlborough Court, 1949).
The party attempting to rely on the provision takes reasonable measures to alert the other party to it (Thompson v LMS Railway, 1930).
Task 3
Case study 3
According to Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880), an offer may generally be rescinded at any moment prior to acceptance, and it is crucial that the revocation be disclosed (Dickinson v Dodds, 1876). However, in unilateral offers, merely carrying out the act is enough to create a legally binding agreement and no communication of renunciation is necessary.
A unilateral contract is one in which only one party is required to keep their commitment. For example, in the case of a reward, only the party providing the prize is required to keep their promise (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1892).
In this instance, the announcement of a reward of £1,000 for the first person to paddle from Dover to Calais across the English Channel in a bath constitutes a unilateral offer. The execution of this deed is the consideration. Adam is obligated to pay Brian after his performance is through and cannot revoke the promise because Brian has already begun to walk.
Task4
Case study 4
Because the gloves were provided but purposefully not used, Neil is not responsible. Additionally, as determined in the identical case of, if the employee chooses not to use the safety equipment provided by the employer, the company will not be held accountable for carelessness (McWilliams -v- Sir William Arrol & Company Ltd., 1962).
Unit 5 Aspect of Contract Law in Business Assignment Merit Copy
Statement B: Because Colin’s actions were a personal and independent act performed in a common employment, Roger cannot bring a claim in vicarious liability against Ben as was held in the case of Priestly v. Fowler (1837), which established that an employer cannot be held responsible for injuries caused by an employee to another employee in the course of their employment.
Statement C: The Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957, which imposes a duty on occupiers with regard to their “lawful visitors,” holds The Poshplace Hotel accountable to Mark. The common duty of care is to take “such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to ensure that the visitor will be fairly safe in using the premises for the reasons for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there,” according to Section 2(2) of the Act (legislation.gov.uk, n.d). In this case, the Poshplace Hotel has a non-delegable duty of care to protect the belongings of its legitimate guests. Statement D: Because the warning supplied was unambiguous and Mark would have been safe if he heeded the warning, The Poshplace Hotel is not responsible to Mark under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 because of its warning notice (Roles v Nathan, 1963).
According to Section 2(5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act of 1957, the common duty of care does not impose an obligation on occupiers with respect to risks that have been voluntarily accepted by the visitor, hence Mark cannot pursue a claim against Poshplace (legislation.gov.uk, n.d).
Conclusion
A contract is a promise or set of promises for which the law provides a remedy or the performance of which the law in some manner recognises as a responsibility. All necessary components, including an offer, acceptance, consideration, and legal intention, must be present for a contract to be deemed legitimate. Vicarious liability and negligence are claims made under tort law. Contributory negligence and volenti-non-fit injuria are defences to torts.
References
ACCA, 2014. Home>Students>ACCA Qualification Student Journey >Qualification resources>ACCA Qualification>F4 Corporate and Business Law>Technical articles.[Online]
Available at: http://www.accaglobal.com/in/en/student/acca-qual-student-journey/qual-resource/acca-qualification/f4/technical-articles/key-aspects-of-the-law-of-contract-and-the-tort-of-negligence.html
[Accessed 26 11 2014].Balfour v Balfour(1919) 2 KB 571 .
Bettini v Gye(1876) QBD 183.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven(1880) 5 CPD 344 .
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company(1892) EWCA Civ.
Chapelton v Barry UDC(1940) 1 KB 532 .
CONTRACTS, n.d. [Online]
Available at: http://www.macrealestate.com/SAMPLE.pdf
[Accessed 26 11 2014].Currie v Misa(1875) LR 10 Ex 153.
Dickinson v Dodds(1876) 2 Ch D 463.
Donoghue v. Stevenson(1932) AC 532.
Duffy and others v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd.(2000) All ER (D) 892.
Edwards v Skyways Ltd.(1964) 1 WLR 349 .
Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise(1976) 1 WLR 1.
Ferrera v Littlewoods pools(1998) EWCA Civ 618 .
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha(1962) 2 QB 26 .
Locus Aspects of contract law assignment help is provided by the industry’s top most corporate law writers. Locus Assignment Help UK posting units solutions so scholars can explore Assignment Help in UK and get review the quality of our work.
