Business Law English Law of Contract

Question: Describe about the Business Law for English Law of Contract. Answer: Issue In the first situation, Steve has hired the truck that is capable of loading 12 tons but when tom had loaded 10 tonnes, the suspension of truck collapsed. Is it a negligent misrepresentation? In the second situation, Pamela often watered the plants in Steve's garden. In return of it, when she asked for Steves help, he has agreed to lend his car. On the fix date, when Pamela came to collect the car Steve has refused to lend his car by saying that he has already hired his car to another customer. After this issue Pamela broke the contract. Is it the case of past consideration? Third Situation describes that Danny and Steve were both agreed on similar contract. But both of them were unaware about the accident of vehicle for which they have contracted. Later, Danny has refused to take another car. Is it the case of Common Mistake? Fourth situation illustrates that accidently Steve has sent the form innocently to Trisha. But it has led an agreement that is resulted into loss of thousands of rupees to Trisha. Is it the case of Doctrine of Estoppels? Law Law for first situation: Misrepresentation contains act in which false information is provided by one party to another party who were going to enter into a contract. In such contracts, other party believes that the person who is representing about the information is doing things in good faith. There are three types of Misrepresentation: Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when one party represent about any information with the intention to deceive them. The party who is providing the information should be known about the fact that it is false. Negligent Misrepresentation: Such kind of misrepresentation occurs when defendant represent about information carelessly that have no reasonable ground to believe that it is true. Innocent Misrepresentation: In such situation, another party remains innocent. It occurs in a situation when represent or has reasonable grounds for believing that the false statement is true. The situation of Negligent Misrepresentation arises when one party who is representing were innocent and dont know that whatever they would be representing is correct or not. They also did not take any responsibility for finding the truth of the fact(Lexisnexis, 2016). This case is the representation of negligent mistake. As per the Australian Consumer Law, the person who was engaged in misrepresentative negligent conduct has the liability towards damages of Tom. Tom can rescind the contract and can claim for the amount of loss as in case of Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (2007) 232 ALR 232. Therefore, the party who has suffered through such contracts can rescind the contract. The only difference exist between fraudulent misrepresentation is that it requires reckless disregard while in negligent misrepresentation there is no reasonable ground for assuming that the fact is true(Gergen, 2013, pp. 966-969). Law for second situation: Consideration is the price or amount that is paid by the promisor to promisee in exchange of their promise. This form of dealing took place between two parties after the promises are committed. There are three rules of consideration in contract law: Present Consideration: The consideration that has already passed away with the time is known as present consideration. Past Consideration: The consideration that is provided before formation of contract is known as past consideration. Future Consideration: The consideration that is to be paid by the party in future after the formation of contract is known as future consideration. Past consideration is not a law. Past consideration is the exception to the actual law of consideration. It is the amount of consideration that is to be paid by the party for which promise is done in present. The consideration is provided before the date of promise. It is also known as executed consideration. The contracts without consideration are void. In other words, the court of law never enforces gratuitous agreements and past consideration is a gratuitous agreement. Under such contracts, the amount is paid by the promisee similar to the case of Chappell Co Ltd v. Nestle Co [1960] AC 87, at the request of the promisor and both the parties understand that the act would be remunerated. It is enforceable under English law(Harris, 2015, pp. 45-47). Law for third situation: In the contract law, mistake is defined as an erroneous belief confronted while contracting that the certain facts are true. There are three types of mistakes in contract law: Mutual Mistake: Such type of mistake occurs when the parties have a misunderstanding about the things for which they were making contract. They think/talks about different thing. Common Mistake: This is the mistake committed by both the parties for the same thing. Unilateral Mistake: It is the form of mistake in which one party mistakenly talks about the thing that other party knows about. One party in this contract have the knowledge about true fact. The situation of Common mistake occurs when both the parties in which contract has occurred were innocent and were making similar mistakes for understanding the fact about the subject matter(inbrief, 2016). As a remedy of common mistake, the parties either breach the contract through mutual consensus or they can rectify their mistakes through applying for the written document rectified. But it is necessary that both the parties should agree over the subject matter of contract. Under the law of common mistake, the subject matter does not exist for longer (Res extinct) and goods were already belongs to purchaser (Res sua). In such cases contracts proves to void because both the parties in this case are innocent. A kind of relief is provided to both the parties by recognizing that such mistake occurs occasionally(Capper, 2009, pp. 459-461). Law for fourth situation: Doctrine of Promissory Estoppels is the contract in which a man is bounded by a promise even when the promise is quite gratuitous. It falls in the spheres that are neither a contract nor an Estoppel. Doctrine of Estoppels allows the person to negate and deny from anything that is constituted as actual truth, either by his deeds or actions that is the represented by the acts of judicial. It enables the person to enforce the actual promises even after the non-payment of consideration. Estoppel is the common name given to the function of legal doctrines. This situation prevents the person from making any assertions as in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 that proves to be contradictory in comparison to the prior situation. In such case, the person is called as estopped. In this case, the estoppels are plugged over the situation to place the brake. This will save the situation to become imbalanced. Application Application for first situation: The contract taken place between Steve and Tom cannot be proved as voidable. Misrepresentation is a civil offense; therefore it is the liability of Steve to pay for the losses of Tom amounted $5000. But Steve is innocent in this case because he has hired his truck innocently and was not aware about the actual capacity of his truck. Another thing that is essential in contract is to return the amount that is paid by the Tom for using the asset of Steve. Application for second situation: In the present case, Steve has promised to Pamela that he would lend his car as she is going on holidays. It is the remuneration that Steve is going to pay to Pamela as she has watered his garden when he was not present at his home. One party in this contract has committed his act on the part that other party will also commit his promise but another party (Steve) has failed to perform his duty. It is a situation where promisee is already bounded with the terms of contractual obligations. Application for third situation: In this situation, Steve has called Danny for the hiring of his car in return of some amount. They both were agreed on similar contract. At the time of contract, both of them was innocent and were unknown about the actual situation. But when Danny has arrived to take the car, Steve said that the car is already destroyed by some of his customer. Both the parties were innocent in this contract, therefore contract can be said to be void. Application for fourth situation: In this case, Steve has mistakenly signed the form that contains specification for air conditioner. He has unknowingly faxed the form to Trisha. When the order has arrived, he has refused to accept it by saying that he has not agreed on this agreement. This has caused losses of several thousand dollars to Trisha. Both the parties are innocent in this case at their positions. Steve was estopped in this case by denying the fact that he had never entered into the contract(Weitzenbck, 2012, pp. 5-9). Conclusion As a conclusion of first case, Tom can rescind the term of contract. The term of contract contains negligence on the part of preparatory. From the point of view of Tom, it is a serious offence rather than innocent misrepresentation. It has its own set of remedies that is separate from the part of negligence. In the second case, because the promise that is enforced is not a part of original contract, thus consideration cannot be claimed for additional contract. Since, no additional consideration is provided for the additional promise; therefore there is no contractual liability for the collection of car. In the third case, the final conclusion can be derived from the case that contract is void according to law on the ground of mistake. The contract will be rescinded by the court as both the parties were failed to perform the contract. In the case of Doctrine of Estoppels, Trisha has innocently believed the fact to be true; therefore she has the right to claim for the amount of conside ration. She will be able to enforce her rights against Steve for the losses. Bibliography Journals Gergen, M. P. (2013). Negligent Misrepresentation as Contract. California Law Review , 101 (04), 953-1011. Websites (2016). Actionable misrepresentation and negligent misstatementoverview. Retrieved August 22, 2016, from lexisnexis: https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/disputeresolution/document/393747/567M-26H1-F18B-71BK-00000-00/Actionable-misrepresentation%E2%80%94overview (2016). Common Law Mistake in Contract. Retrieved August 22, 2016, from inbrief: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/mistakes-in-contracts/ Modules Weitzenbck, E. M. (2012). English Law of Contract:Promissory Estoppel. Norwegian Research Center for Computers Law. Harris, B. (2015). Business and Corporations Law. Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia: Division of Learning and Teaching Services, Charles Sturt University. Capper, D. (2009). COMMON MISTAKE IN CONTRACT LAW. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies , 457-473.