Essays on Contract Legally Enforceable Law

Question: Describe about the Essays on Contract for Legally Enforceable Law. Answer: 1. The issue that is present in this case is related with the fact if the agreement that was concluded between Richard and his father is legally enforceable or not. According to this agreement, Richard's father agreed to pay him $200 per week in he took care of the family property and mowed the lawns. But later on, the father refused to pay this amount and claimed that as a member of the family, this work should be done by Richard for free. Under these circumstances, a question arises if Richard can legally enforce this promise. According to the law of contract, an agreement that has been concluded between the parties is considered to be enforceable under the law if the essential elements required for creating a valid contract are present. The formation of a valid contract requires that elements like offer, acceptance and consideration should be present. At the same time, it should be the intention of the parties that they are going to enter legal relations and the parties should also have the capacity to do so. The requirement according to which it should be the intention of the parties that the demand created by them should be enforceable by the law has been introduced by the law of contract so that a distinction can be made between the cases in which any action by the court should not be taken (Atiyah, 1990). As a result of the requirement of above mentioned essential elements, all the agreements that are created by the parties cannot be enforced by the law. Therefore, when two friends have decided to go out for dinner, such a promise is not enforceable by the law. In such a case, although a moral obligation is present that the promise to be fulfilled but this promise is not legally enforceable. Due to this reason, such agreements are not enforceable under the law. The reason behind this position of law is that in such cases, there is a lack of intention on the part of the parties to the demand that the promise made by them will be legally enforceable. In this regard, the law also goes by the wishes of the party. The result is that in order to decide if a particular agreement can be enforced under the law and to see if the parties had the intention of entering into legal relations, the law recognizes a distinction between domestic/social agreements and the agreements concluded in context of trade or commerce (Beale, (ed) 2002). The court had discussed the requirement of the intention of creating legal relations by the parties in Balfour v Balfour [1919]. Therefore while deciding the case, the court was of the opinion that even if the domestic arrangement created between the parties is of a complex nature, still a presumption will be present that it was not the intention of the parties to create legal relations. In the same way, the issue was also discussed by the court in Jones v Padavatton (1969). In this case, Mrs. Jones offered to pay $200 to her daughter if left her job in the US and went to study at the bar in London. Mrs. Jones wanted that her daughter should join her in Trinidad after completing her legal studies. Under these circumstances, the daughter of Mrs. Padavatton went to study in London however the acting made between the parties was not working smoothly. While the daughter believed that Mrs. Jones will be going to pay US$200, on the other hand Mrs. Jones had intended to pay $220 Trinidad do llars which half in value as compared to the US dollars. The result was that Mrs. Padavatton had to live in a single room with her son. Consequently, Mrs. Jones decided to purchase a large house for her daughter so she can rent out the rest of the rooms and this money was to be used by Mrs. Padavatton as her maintenance. Later on, the daughter could not complete their studies and she also married. Under these circumstances, Mrs. Jones wanted the possession of the house. In the court, the issue was if the parties had the intention of creating legal relations order or if it was only a family arrangement and the parties did not have any such intention. In its decision, the court stated that the arrangement between the parties was a family agreement. Consequently, it can be presumed that parties lacked the intention of entering into legal relations. In this regard, the court pointed out towards the fact that no evidence was presented to rebut this presumption regarding the lack of intention. When the facts of the above-mentioned case are applied to the present issue, it can be said that Richard's father had made a promise to pay $200 if Richard mowed the lawns but this was merely a domestic arrangement. It was not the intention of the parties that the promise made by them can be enforced under the law. Before giving this task to Richard, the same task was being done by a garden contractor and he was charging $350 for the same. However Richard's father promised to pay $200 to him if he took care of the family property and mowed the lawns. However after sometime, Richard's father said that this work should be done by Richard for free because he was also a member of the family and moreover, he was getting free boarding and lodging from him. As a result, now Richard wants to know if the promise made by his father to pay $200 per week can be enforced under the law. However, the rules of contract law that have been mentioned above, make it clear that if there is a lack of intention on the part of the parties to end the legal relations, such an agreement is not considered as a valid contract and therefore it cannot be enforced in a court of law. Therefore in the present case also, the agreement between Richard and his father was a domestic arrangement. Hence, a presumption is present that they did not have the intention of creating legal relations. At the same time, there is no evidence to rebut this presumption. As a result, Richard cannot enforce the promise according to which his father was going to be $200 per week. 2. On the grounds of the facts that have been provided in this question, the issue arises if any remedies are available to Frre Bros when Joe had breached the contract. In this case, the contract between the parties provided that Joe will not act in films of other companies for the period of the contract. The contract was for five years but in the first year itself, Joe decided to act in a film of Pretty Pictures. Therefore, the issue in this question is related with the remedies that may be available to Frre Bros. According to the law of contract, when a party to the contract has failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract or could not keep up the promise made by it, it is said that such party has breached the contract. The breach of contract committed by such party can be whole or in part (Benson, (ed) 2001). When it is established that the contract has been breached by a party, there are certain remedies that are available to the other party. Some of the main remedies that are available to the innocent party in such a case are damages, injunction and the remedy of specific performance. Generally, the remedy of damages is granted by the courts whenever there is a breach of contract. In this regard, the law of contract describes damages as the loss or cost that has to be incurred by the innocent party due to the wrongful acts of the other party (Addis v Gramophone, 1909). In this way, damages can be described as the payment that needs to be made under the common law when there is a breach of contract. The purpose behind the remedy of damages is to provide financial compensation to the innocent party for the loss that has been suffered by such a party due to the breach of contract (Burrows, Finn and Todd, 2002). Therefore it can be said that damages are provided for protecting the expectation interests of the promisee. Similarly, the court may also award contractual damages for breach of contract. Therefore when a breach of contract has taken place, the other by the may suffer a loss. In such a case, the court may award contractual damages not with a view to punish th e guilty party. In the same way, when damages are awarded by the court, the court does not consider the paying ability of the defendant. Due to this reason, the damages awarded by the court can be the difference present between the contractual rights and the price paid by the innocent party for the performance of the contract. The next remedy that may be granted by the courts whenever there is a breach of contract is that of specific performance. According to the law of contract, the remedy of specific performance is an order made by the court according to which the defendant had to perform a particular act and the defendant is already bound under the contract to perform such an act. It has been seen that usually the courts grant the remedy of specific performance when they want that something should be done by a party to the contract or when sent by the has to be restrained from doing something (Nutbrown v Thornton, 1805). It is also worth mentioning at this point that as a contractual remedy, specific performance can be used for the purpose of establishing an earlier established transaction. The remedy of specific performance can be most effective when such an order has been made with a view to protect the expectation interests of the innocent party in case of a breach of contract. However, while making an order of specific performance, the court has to see if adequate relief can be provided to the innocent party through another of damages. Therefore, when such a relief can be provided by an award of damages, generally the court will not make an order of specific performance. In the same way, the courts can also refuse to order specific performance if the contractual terms are not mention clearly by the parties. Another remedy that can be granted by the courts for the breach of contract by a party to the contract is intention. As a remedy for breach of contract, intention is in order according to which, the other party is prevented by the court from doing something. For this purpose, the court can issue different injunctions like mandatory injunction and interlocutory injunction. In this question, Frre Bros had a contract with a film actor, Joe. According to this contract, Joe will not act in the films of other companies for the period of contract. Although the contract was for five years but the first year of the contract itself, Joe agreed to act in the film of Pretty Pictures. Therefore it can be said that a breach of contract has been committed by Joe. The result is that the remedy of intention can be claimed by Frre Bros according to which, Joe will be restrained from acting in the film of Pretty Pictures. Hence, out of the remedies available for a breach of contract, the remedy of intention can be claimed by Frre Bros. References Atiyah, P.S. 1990, Essays on Contract, Oxford University Press, New York Beale, H. (ed) 2002, Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law Hart Publishing, Oxford Benson, P. (ed) 2001, The Theory of Contract Law: New Essays Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Burrows, JF, Finn, J. and Todd, S. M.D. 2002, The Law of Contract in New Zealand (2nd ed, LexisNexis NZ, Wellington Case Law Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 Addis v Gramophone[1909] AC 488 Nutbrown v Thornton (1805) 10 Ves 159