'Business law case study Essay\r'

'This essay allow for discuss the Case study by firstly identifying four elements of arrangement, then justifying duties of Mr. Martin with applying the principles of pre-existing contractual duties. in the long run a discussion ab expose farewell salary of debt and promissory estoppel result be explained. Likewise, this essay will evaluate the knowledge of vulgar rectitude and delegacy relationship.\r\n headway 1\r\na) Four essential elements of a contract should be Offer, Acceptance, Intention to create heavy relations and Consideration. Firstly, offer up, according to Adams(2012), is a liberal and unresolved statement of the cost”(p79) send to a agencyy(the offeree) by anformer(a) party(the offeror). Otherwise in that respect could be a misunderstanding of an invitation to treat or negotiation which ar similar statements. If an offer intends to be licitly binding, acceptance, by which the offerees git show their agreement of all the terms of the offer, is needed. Acceptance needs to be valid and making known the offeror, while the terms should as same as the previous ones. A nonher element, i.e. devotion, aims to rile sure the pledge make is of value.\r\nAs defined by Jones (2011), the parcel outation needs to give benefits to the one, who is suffering a going away at the same time. terminal but not least, while making an agreement to be licitly enforceable, intention to create legal relations is important. era judge whether it is a binding contract or not, the situation to make this contract needs to be dealed, in other words, according to Adams(2012), contract make in a domestic or social environment will not be de jure bound. Otherwise, if parties ar willing to do a commercial agreement, it will be regard as legally bound(Jones, 2011).\r\nb) Mr. Martin need to consecrate the £750 due to deuce reasons, base on three cases existed as juridical occasions, which be Stilk v Myrick(1809), Hartley v Ponsonby(1857) an d Williams v Roffey bros(1990)One perspective is that there is an additional value within the brand-new contract, though Mr. Martin and bobtail the builder were being under a pre-existing contract. Hold that the old contract is not over, due to the other aspect of reason, Mr. martin needs to throw the excess coin in order to debar the loss. These afore-mentioned two points will be justified by cases. Stilk v Myrick(1809) indicates that a captain promised the seamen pointless bills if they did success goody return posterior home.\r\nThe mash last hold that the captain is not profession to compensation the extra money because the old contract is existed as there is not of additional value. While Harley v Ponsonby(1857) was held that the captain needs to pay the extra money, though the situation is similar, because the court consider there is extra value added to the new contract, whilst the old contract is discharged. thither are some similarities among these two cases a nd Mr. Martin’ s case. Mr. Martin to a fault sire an existed contract as both parties are agreed to terms of the contract, but comparing to Stilk’s case, Bob the builder suggest a sub-contract with consider an additional value, which is the value of Martin’s seafood. Meantime, because of the bad last and sick crews, Marin need to pay extra money to ensure this additional value is secured, however, this does not way the old contract is over because the contract keister be fulfilled though it may in all probability be expiry, as Martin has to pay extra £750 in spite of the recompense of the previous contract.\r\nOn the other hand, in Williams v Rpffey bros, the guideant consider the loss of defendant if the task is not finished on time, so the defendant do have to pay the claimant the extra money as promised. In this case, Bob the builder consider the benefit of Martin so that they suggest the sub-contractor. As Mr. Marin accepted Bob’s counter o ffer and Bob help him stave off the loss of an step of seafood. harmonise to the precedent of Williams’ case, since new value to considered, Mr. Martin should pay the extra £750. To be concluded, by referring to pre-existing duties, Mr. Martin is have to pay the extra £750.\r\nc) Mr. Martin needs to pay the full £750, as he violates the rule of part requital of debts. When consider the part stipend of debt, it is necessary to line the rule in Pinnel’s Case(1602), by which illustrated that part payment is not a sufficient consideration. Because debtors obtains a benefit with giving nothing of value to the creditors. In Marin’s case, Bob agreed to accept a lower payment(£350) in full settlement despite of both excuse Mr. Marin has used. Obviously, Mr. Martin got a benefit of £400, whereas Bob gained nothing. Therefore, Mr. Marin provided no consideration in this case, because being sympathizing Martin’s bankrupt cannot gain more val ue for Bob. Since two parties failed to achieve benefits of two sides, the promise of Bob is not binding.\r\nAs a result, Martin has to pay the full £750 as a legal duty. Apart from that, with regard of the guileless gritty Trees dwelling Case(1947), the principle of promissory estoppel by held that the claimants can acquire the arrears after the end of the fight because they have the capacity of claiming the recover the previous harm before the war started. However, they are prevented to take back the amount of arrears failed to pay because of their previous promise. In High Tress House Case, the promise was make on a real situation where two parties would consider their benefits therefore achieve benefits of both sides. Specifically, the defendants get the correctly of lease whilst the claimants obtained a number of mesh.\r\nWhile in Martin’s case, no matter whether Mr. Martin have difficulties in his financial situation or not, there is distillery no considerati on for Bob the builder, although Mr. Martin do have a benefit of saving £400. Since there is no consideration exist, Bob is not obliged to conform the rule of promissory estoppel. To be summarised, by discussing the part payment of debt and promissory estoppel, it is responsible for Mr. Martin to pay the full £750. As Promissory estoppel is on the doctrine of equality.\r\nQUESTION 2\r\nAccording to PPP(n.d.), the greenness justice is the law comprises the custom and judicial precedents of the courts. First feature of common law is that it is not codified, making it is not feeler from the comprehensive legislation which is created through Parliament. Apart from EU enforceable law, common law depends on the distributed courts, in where legislative decisions are made. In other words, common law is the certain law made by judges. The decisions have been made in similar cases would last precedents, which mainly compose the common law. These precedents will be collected and rec orded as historical documents or files over time.\r\nWhen coming up a new case, these precedents would be applied in the decision, which means precedents make future decision legally bound. Hierarchy has to be referred to when talking about the precedent, whereas not every precedent will be used in judging a new case. The precedent made in a higher court can be applied in a lower court, differently it will not be applicable. For example, a judicial decision, i.e. precedent, already made in court of compendium should be applicable in high court or county court, but a decision made in county court should not obliged to get along for high court. On the other hand, the courts can countermine the decisions of those in same level. Last but not least, the common law make contract more freedom, which means there are few regulations to inhibit contracts. Basically, everything could be acceptable even if there is exceedingly forbidden by law(Adams, 2012 and Jones, 2011).\r\nQUESTION 3\r \nAccording to Adams(2012) and Jones(2011), the relationships between agency and head are fiducial ones. Basically, components do not have legal indemnify to payment unless the principal authorise the right. Generally payment must not be due until the component have fulfilled the expected result of principal, otherwise, payment can not be used among any certain process on the relationship. However, agent can be regularly paid when agreement stock willingness of both sides. Another right of agent is to claim indemnity if there is any expenses incurred when agent expect the authority, no matter the agent is gratuitous or not. On the other hand, agents do have duty to possess reasonable care and skill, moreover, an agent with schoolmaster or trade skill is expected to hold the skills as conducting a trade or profession.\r\nThen, a contractual agent must carry out the agreed tasks and the whole process of achieving the result should deliver the goods the principal’s orde rs. Therefore, an agent needs to achieve his duties himself. The performance of the duties cannot be delegated to any third party. Likewise, the agent is required to be accountable for any profits arising from the performance of the duties and to record the benefits of exercises of authority. Besides, an agent has duty to avoid the possibility of being conflict of interest without principal’s permit, though agent must not sell his own property or shares to principal. Last but not least, an agent not provided cannot take any form of bribe, but besides cannot make secret profit, whereby the principal can leave out the agent and make the contract voidable for fraud.\r\nIn conclusion, case study has been discussed by applying the related law knowledge in terms of consideration of contract particularly. Therefore, basic explanation of common law and, duties and rights within agency relationship are demonstrated.\r\nBibliography\r\nAdams, A (2012), natural law for business stud ents(7th ed), capital of the United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited. Public one-on-one partnership(n.d.), Key features of common law or well-mannered law systems, Available at: http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/legislation-regulation/framework-assessment/legal-systems/common-vs-civil-law. (Assessed 22 February 2014) Jones, L (2011), Introduction to Business Law, New York: Oxford University Press. Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947) KB 130, 44, 53, 110, 119, 595 Hartley v Ponsonby(1875) 7 EL BL 872, 106\r\nPinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117, 108, 109, 117, 595\r\nStilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317, 106, 107, 589\r\nWilliams v Roffey Bros (1990) 1 altogether ER 512 CA, 107-109, 118, 119\r\n'