Sanctity Of Contract And Reasonable Expectations

Contract law is relatively consistent regarding whether a contract was actually made and whether the parties involved can be legally held to the contract or not. This is primarily due to the fact that contract law proceeds from law handed down from centuries of civil and common law cases. Basically, two parties have to agree to the terms of the cited contract, after the offer is made and accepted (both parties have had time to review and make changes to the contract, although this process does not always occur), and they have either orally agreed or signed some form of written contract. It can be argued in a court afterword that there was not sufficient consideration or that one party coerced the other into an agreement, but these are usually handled at the signing of the contract. This process is time honored and, as said, has been in place for a long time. But, new types of contracts occur at times and they have a different sort of accounting by the courts. One of these types of contracts is that generally called prenuptial, antenuptial or premarital (Standler, 2009). This paper looks at prenuptial agreements and using the case of Simeone v. Simeone tries to determine some of the pros and cons of treating these agreements more like regular contracts.

Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.

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

There is no general definition of good faith under English contract law; it is generally a presumption that two parties will act honestly and fairly with one another. Unlike other systems of law, such as the French Civil Code, English contract law does not recognise the obligation of ‘good faith’. Instead there is more of a negative obligation not to tell lies rather than a positive obligation to tell the truth and act in good faith. However recent cases such as Yam Seng PTE Ltd v International Trade Corporation Limited have shown that the courts attitudes towards good faith have been developing and changing. Now it may be possible to imply a term of good faith in a contract. Therefore, where traditionally there has been a negative obligation not to tell lies, English contract law may be slowly moving towards an obligation of good faith.

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

Australia has not yet committed itself to a definitive principle of good faith in contract law. Unlike the legal systems in Europe and the United States, Australia does not demand an explicit legal prerequisite of good faith to form a contract.[1] Decisions in different jurisdictions have however considered the validity of the values identified in the doctrine of good faith within contract law, such as loyalty, honesty and cooperation. Good faith is valuable because it provides confidence in the formation of contracts between two parties. However there are conflicting views and criticisms of the doctrine of good faith.

Due to the different roots of the two systems, the definition of a contract, as well as its formation, differ between contract law in Common Law Jurisdictions and in Civil Law Jurisdictions (France). The Common Law views contracts as bargains, exchange, a simple agreement has no binding force. It is mainly concerned with forecasting the impact and the binding legal consequences of a party’s promise. The structure or purpose of the contract is not as important as knowing whether the promise of performance that the contract is based upon is enforceable.

Every contract is based on the concept of agreement. A contract is defined as a legal agreement consisting of exchange of promises which is recognized by law as giving rise to enforceable rights and obligations. The test of agreement is used to ensure whether or not there is a contract between the parties. Whereas the objective test ensures certainty, the same cannot be said about the subjective test of agreement. The objective test of agreement is when the court decides whether there is contract based on the outward appearance of what constitutes the contract. However the subjective test of agreement involves trying to establish whether there was a “meeting of minds” when the contract was made. That is, to try to figure out the mental state of mind of the parties involved during the time the contract was made.

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 today’s English law, freedom of contract is one the foundation of contract law. The existence of freedom of contract requires three main considerations: the freedom to

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

Undoubtedly, the constitutional principle of the rule of law is one of the most essential values in the English legal system. It has aptly been characterized as “a wrapper that is placed around a bundle of more specific principles”. Interestingly, prominent personalities like inter alia, Lord Bingham, Jeffrey Jowell and Dicey, have identified that legality, certainty, accountability, efficiency, due process and access to justice are only a number of those specific principles which all together constitute the rule of law. Some of these values reflect the formal conception of the rule of law while others, the substantive. Furthermore, it would be an omission not to say that, within the absence of a written constitution, the rule of law places a significant role within the English legal system.

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

Contracts, business, and laws are three simple little words, but when put together they have a substantial impact on our everyday lives. Below we will discuss three case studies. The first case is between Chris, Matt, and Ian vs. Donald Margolin, who was injured when he used an aftershave lotion that he bought off the internet called Funny Face. The second case is between Sam, his landlord, and a national chain store. Sam is being accused of conducting business from his apartment and going back on a verbal promise. In the last case is two lifelong friends who decided to join in a partnership and open up a sporting goods shop. Therefore, before the appropriate court can proceed with the first case, the court should take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and whether or not corporation/or corporate offices can be held for the criminal or potential act. In the second case before the court can rule the court should determine the various elements of a valid contract, if a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam 's claims. Finally, in the third case between Jeb and Josh, they should determine the type of business entity that will overall protect their business and personal needs.

This paper analyses the stated fact pattern against the matrix of contract law with a view to answering the two specific questions posed. The questions both concern issues of contract formation. Pertinent case law and authority is applied in de constructing the scenarios and forming sound conclusions.