Business Law
Business and Law
Coursework Assignment
With regard to the case, there are two legal issues needed to be handled. First, it is needed to determine whether 1) Tommy can sue Ada for not reducing the height of fence which is eracted along the side of Ada’s garden 2) Mickey can sue Ada for not fulfilling her promise to pay $1000 for Mickey’s help. To determine the two legal issues, we need to consider if any contractual relationship was formed between them.
To begin with, a contract is a legally binding agreement made between two or more parties with the present of some essential elements like offer and acceptance, consideration etc. To form a contact effectively, there must be an offer by one party and an acceptance of it by the other.
Concerning the fence being built along Ada’s garden, an oral agreement is formed between Tommy and Ada. According to the case, Ada promised Tommy to reduce the size of the fence if Tommy agreed not to sue Ada. This constitutes an offer since it involves unilateral contract, i.e. one party (Tommy) promises to perform if the other party (Ada) perform. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)1).
According to Cook v Wright (1861)2, the court hold that forbearance from pursing legal claim is a good consideration. The Cook case is similar to Ada’s case. Ada knew Tommy will sue her if she did not reduce the height of fence. In order to avoid legal responsibilities, Ada compromised. It can be concluded that Tommy’s forbearance from pursing legal claim is a good consideration.
Besides, Ada made a definite promise (to reduce the size of fence) to Tommy with the serious intention, which is to stop Tommy from making a legal claim against Ada, of being bound by this promise. This is obviously not simply an invitation to treat but an offer with definite form capable of being accepted in identical terms.
After the offer is made, acceptance can determine whether a contract can be effectively formed between two parties. Tommy has
Coursework Assignment
With regard to the case, there are two legal issues needed to be handled. First, it is needed to determine whether 1) Tommy can sue Ada for not reducing the height of fence which is eracted along the side of Ada’s garden 2) Mickey can sue Ada for not fulfilling her promise to pay $1000 for Mickey’s help. To determine the two legal issues, we need to consider if any contractual relationship was formed between them.
To begin with, a contract is a legally binding agreement made between two or more parties with the present of some essential elements like offer and acceptance, consideration etc. To form a contact effectively, there must be an offer by one party and an acceptance of it by the other.
Concerning the fence being built along Ada’s garden, an oral agreement is formed between Tommy and Ada. According to the case, Ada promised Tommy to reduce the size of the fence if Tommy agreed not to sue Ada. This constitutes an offer since it involves unilateral contract, i.e. one party (Tommy) promises to perform if the other party (Ada) perform. (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)1).
According to Cook v Wright (1861)2, the court hold that forbearance from pursing legal claim is a good consideration. The Cook case is similar to Ada’s case. Ada knew Tommy will sue her if she did not reduce the height of fence. In order to avoid legal responsibilities, Ada compromised. It can be concluded that Tommy’s forbearance from pursing legal claim is a good consideration.
Besides, Ada made a definite promise (to reduce the size of fence) to Tommy with the serious intention, which is to stop Tommy from making a legal claim against Ada, of being bound by this promise. This is obviously not simply an invitation to treat but an offer with definite form capable of being accepted in identical terms.
After the offer is made, acceptance can determine whether a contract can be effectively formed between two parties. Tommy has