Law Essay Example
In this case, Wendy has grounds to refuse to pay the newspaper company the amount demanded by the company. This is due to the fact according to the law of contracts; a minor cannot enter into contract with another person. This can be established in the case of Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose where a contract was declared void since one of the parties was a minor. The law further clarifies that upon attainment of a majority by the minor, the contract cannot be ratified since the original contract is void ab-initio (Gibson 2011, p.32). Wendy could claim that her legal rights have been impeached due to the fact that she was not in a position to make a contract with the newspaper company. Another legal question that could be raised is in connection with Indran Ramaswamy v. Anthiappa Chettiar case whereby the law is clear that a minor cannot be sued or compelled to pay any benefit he/she accrued under a void contract.
In the case of James and Lovely lands Pty (LL), the case a scenario similar to breach of contract and lack of clear terms in the contract entered into. James could argue that the contract entered between LL and him was not done in good faith. In drawing up of a contract, both parties should be bound by the rule of full disclosure. In the case of Oakes & Co. vs. Jacksonjudgment was rendered to the effect that non-disclosure of full information amounts to fraud or misrepresentation (Gibson 2011, p.22). Since Mr. Don of LL lied to James has every right to sue LL for misrepresentation through their manager, Mr. Don.
b) In case the contract had a clause which said that the purchaser relied upon his information then James would have no reason to claim for compensation relating to work done on his house. This is because the contact would have been clear.
c) In caseJames would have entered into contract with Mr. Don then the case would have been fraudulentsince Don had every intention of lying to James as it concerns the landscaping job. This is similar to the caseof Kirtee Chunder v. Struthers, where Kirtee was ordered to compensate the aggrieved party.
The scenario represented by the happenings at the park advance some serious legal implications which affected Maria and thus she has a reason of complaint. Her visit to the Railway led to her car being destroyed, her son and her being hurt. According to the law, for a contract to be valid, the offer must be made with the intention of obtaining acceptance. This is in relation to Neale v. Merrett, whereby a case was held because the contract was made in reference to the offeree accepting the contract (Gibson 2011, p.41). In arguing out her case, Maria could argue that her consent was not given since the law recognizes consent as an agreement by both parties on a similar position. In case Maria had visited the park on the previous occasions then she would have no right of demanding compensation or refund against the company since she would have earlier concluded contracts. This is a sign of acceptance of an offer and is similar to Foster v. Mackinnon case.
The scenario represented in this case takes a look at the issue of misrepresentation, whereby Charlie was lied to by James concerning her trip to Turkey. According to the law, Charlie has a right to demand for a refund since the contract drawn was not honored. In cases of misrepresentation as witnessed by Bonnerman v. White, in the case of Charlie she would not have agreed to pay for the trip if she not be satisfied (Gibson 2011, p.35). Another legal argument that could be advanced from this situation is the fact that full disclosure was not advanced to Charlie. The ambiguity of the offer made by the tour firm made the contract agreement between them to be null and void. In the case of Balfour v.Balfour, the contract was declared void due to the fact that all facts were not presented clearly leading to ambiguity. In this case Charlie should demand for a refund since the contract between her and James is void.
The case of Laura and her two nephews arises from a mistake in the rent renewal, according to law the mistake is referred to as a mistake of fact. Neither of the parties was aware of the mistake until after the signing of the contract. Since there was a mistake, agreeing with the law the contract is void. Laura therefore has a right to pay rent using the old rates of $20 until a new contract is signed. In reference to Courturier v. Hastic case, Laura could exercise her right and come up with a new agreement that would allow her to pay $ 200 weekly rent and not to sale the shop (Gibson 2011, p.28). The nephews on the other hand would have had the opportunity of buying the building if they had exercised the option to their company since, an option holder according to law has the right of excising that right before anybody else as witnessed in the Henkel v. Pape case.
The case of Fred and Ginger is very interesting; the two were involved in a deal thatresembles a contract. However during the undertaking of the contract/deal, Fred engaged in fraud which caused damage to Ginger. According to the law, Fred did not disclose full information concerning the agreement they had on the dry cleaning of Ginger’s dress. This is similar to the case of Roberts v. Gray, where a case of fraud was decided against Adam Gray for participating in fraud. According to the law, fraud constitutes of an assertion of something false with knowledge of party asserting it. In case an aggrieved party wins a fraud case, most of the time he/she is paid damages and according to the law, damages amount to loss caused to the aggrieved party as a result of the faulty contract (Gibson 2011, p.38). In this case Ginger has a right to demand a new dress and any losses caused to her from missing the dress; however her rights did not include demanding more than she is owed. Fred has a right to sue Ginger for demanding more than she is owed as witnessed in the Derry v. Peek case.
The case involving Farm Equip and Scientific Beans is a bit complicated since the case represents a breach of contract due to circumstances that were unavoidable. The actions of Scientific Beans amounts to fraud since the firm made a commitment that it did not intend to keep. In such a case, Scientific Beans did not make any plans to supply the goods it was contracted to supply. This case is similar to a Cooper v. Phibbs whereby Cooper was order to compensate Phibbs for goods not supplied as per the contract (Gibson 2011, p.17). The legal rights of Farm Equip include demanding for supply of contracted goods and for it to be compensated for loss incurred due to delays in supply of contracted goods. Farm Equip has the onus of proving that they actually suffered the damages demanded as witnessed in the case of Ward v. Hobbs.
Gibson A and Fraser D, 2011, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson Education, Adelaide: Australia.
More Important Things