Business Law Contracts Essay
LEGT 1710 Assignment 2
Introduction
Harry (H) who is the father of James (J) is attempting to sue J for a breach in contract and is seeking damages of $30,000 which he believes is the outstanding amount that is owed to him by J. This case touches on the fundamental concepts of contract law where H can only claim damages if the formation of a valid contract between the two parties is evident via the elements of a contract, including intention, agreement, consideration, legal capacity, genuine consent and legality of objects must be established. Once these elements are satisfied, the terms of the contract need to be evaluated to deem whether the contract between H and J is enforceable. Once it has been established that the contract is valid, the relevant facts should be analysed in regard to any breach in the contract, and if there is a breach, the extent of the damages which should be awarded to H should be outlined.
Contract Validity
Upon further examination, this case can be split up, where there are two contracts that are potentially formed. For this contract to be valid and legally enforceable, offer, acceptance, intention and consideration need to be present. Upon analysing the facts, it can be seen that both parties have full legal capacity as they had enough legal knowledge to make the legal decisions themselves. Consent as well as the legality of objects is not an issue as there is genuine agreement between the two parties as well as the doctrine of privity of contract holds (Latimer 2012).
Contract 1 a) Intention
Although there is a domestic relationship between the two parties implying that there would no intention (Balfour v Balfour); Wakeling v Rippley shows that if there is economic seriousness involved between the domestic parties, the presumption that there was no intention to create a legally binding contract will be rebutted. Therefore intention is present in this first contract, as J pays H $60,000 and $20,000 for the timber and
Introduction
Harry (H) who is the father of James (J) is attempting to sue J for a breach in contract and is seeking damages of $30,000 which he believes is the outstanding amount that is owed to him by J. This case touches on the fundamental concepts of contract law where H can only claim damages if the formation of a valid contract between the two parties is evident via the elements of a contract, including intention, agreement, consideration, legal capacity, genuine consent and legality of objects must be established. Once these elements are satisfied, the terms of the contract need to be evaluated to deem whether the contract between H and J is enforceable. Once it has been established that the contract is valid, the relevant facts should be analysed in regard to any breach in the contract, and if there is a breach, the extent of the damages which should be awarded to H should be outlined.
Contract Validity
Upon further examination, this case can be split up, where there are two contracts that are potentially formed. For this contract to be valid and legally enforceable, offer, acceptance, intention and consideration need to be present. Upon analysing the facts, it can be seen that both parties have full legal capacity as they had enough legal knowledge to make the legal decisions themselves. Consent as well as the legality of objects is not an issue as there is genuine agreement between the two parties as well as the doctrine of privity of contract holds (Latimer 2012).
Contract 1 a) Intention
Although there is a domestic relationship between the two parties implying that there would no intention (Balfour v Balfour); Wakeling v Rippley shows that if there is economic seriousness involved between the domestic parties, the presumption that there was no intention to create a legally binding contract will be rebutted. Therefore intention is present in this first contract, as J pays H $60,000 and $20,000 for the timber and
Bibliography: Felthouse v Bindley (1962) 11 CB (NS) 869; 142 ER 1037 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145 Poussard v Spiers ( 1876) 1 QBD 410 R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234; 114 ER 496 Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317; 170 ER 1168 Carter J.W. Peden E. and Tolhurst G.J, 2007, Contract Law in Australia, 5th edn, (LexisNexis Butterworths), Australia, pp 135, 147-148, 171 Khoury D Khoury D. and Yamouni Y.S, 2010, Understanding Contract Law, 8th edn, (LexisNexis Butterworths), Australia, pp 97-101 Dufty A Latimer, G. 2012, Australian Business law, 31st edn (CCH Australia limited) Sydney, pp 294- 356, 422, 428, 480 Encyclopaedias Lawbook, The Laws of Australia (at 31 August 2006) 7 Contract: General Principles, ‘1 Formation’ [7.1.370] Lawbook, The Laws of Australia (at 31 August 2006) 7 Contract: General Principles, ‘1 Formation’ [7.1.1290]. Lawbook, The Laws of Australia (at 1 December 2008) 35 Unfair Dealing, ‘6 Estoppel’ [35.6.250].