An Appeal Against A Judgment Holding

According to the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) “good faith” is the belief that those involved in a contract will act honestly and fairly. That is saying that those entering a contract will act in and honest and fair manner in regards to the contracts they are entering. The obligations of good faith are part of every contract under the UCC. They act as the framework for the parties entering a contract. An example of good faith is car insurance. A person pays monthly for car insurance with the understanding that their insurance company will cover a certain amount in damages if the car is involved in an accident. If after the car is involved in an accident they insurance company does not pay the amount agreed to for the damages they have not acted

Good faith has thus been defined as “an honest and sincere intent and purpose to explore all possibilities of settlement of the matters in dispute, until the exhaustion of all reasonable efforts and the arrival at a point where a definite decision is reached.”

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

Importing legislation from a nation of dissimilar jurisprudential background is likey to create inconsistency in our current legal framework. Not only is the notion of good faith irreconcilable with existing common law, the concept itself is vastly uncertain and open to interpretation. It has been criticized that the misapplication of good faith in contract in US has created a state of confusion leading to irreconcilable decisions. The definition of good faith in US has largely been uncertain; it even has been referred as ‘mystery’ . The illusory nature of good faith will have a negative impact on our established legal system:

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

Courts traditionally presumed that commercial parties intent to create legal relations when entering into contracts, family members don 't. Albeit not without criticism, up to this point these twin presumptions seemed permanent. This article examines the pattern to lessening the emphasis on these presumptions by individuals from the judicial arena in determination of Australian cases and recommends that, following the High Court 's decision in Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95 intention to create legal relations presumptions ought to never again be utilised as a part of any setting. It concludes by considering the consequences for this area of law.

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.

By 2002 all of the CareGroup hospitals had been brought together into one system using the most sophisticated of the nonmedical center hospital’s software called Meditech. Under Halamka’s reign, CareGroup’s IT had rapidly became the most advance system in health care by 2003.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

V case. The case is about a consultant agreement, governed by English law, according to which, R and V. V made a promise to receive the approvals from the national oil company of a North African state for a construction of plans for R, with R paying a reward for work done. Notwithstanding that R has provided several rewards in the past to V, new Board to R dismissed to make a last payment that had become due. Consequently, V took a claim in the arbitration court an arbitration proceeding has been started in the I.C.C in 2006. The decision was made in favour of V and R was obliged to make a last payment to the V. R stated that the agreement for consultancy was against lex loci solutionis and contrary to the English public policy mainly, because of the fact that V merely impacted the peddling. Court decided that there was no breach of of English law or lex loci solutionis according to the Wetacre case. Court decided that consultancy agreements “was not illegal as a matter of the lex lico solutionis was not

When an offender and it’s representing counsel feels that the judge made a substantial mistake in their case then the defendant through his representing counsel has the option to appeal the decision. Both sides of the case has the opportunity to appeal (in a civil case) if both feel that the decision made by the judge was a mistake or in most cases the loosing side and in criminal cases only the defendant may appeal the verdict ("The Appeals Process", 2012). An appeal is a formal request that a higher court re-examine the procedure or decision of a lower court, administrative agency, or other body ("What Is An Appeal?”, 1995-2012). As I stated previously, the party that lost or feels that the decision made by the presiding

The next ground is that of irrationality which was first introduced as ‘unreasonableness’ in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation . It was held that the decision of a public body will only be deemed unreasonable if they have reached the decision in a manner so unreasonable that no other authority could have reached it. In Hall and Co v Shoreham-by-Sea UDC an unreasonable condition was found.