Stephen and Mary did not know each other before Stephen made an announcement on his new arrivals. Since they had not physically met, they were, therefore, both at arm’s length. It is essential to note that there was a notation that Mary intended to have a legal relationship with Stephen, warranting the confirmation mail regarding her order placement. The law of Torts states that if an individual is harmed because of another person’s negligence, compensation is deemed due (Malik and Ahmed 2018; Luntz et al. 2017, Chng et al. 2019; Fulbrook 2017). However, Stephen was not negligent, considering that Mary’s mail went to the junk folder rather than on his primary folder. Additionally, since there was no legal relationship since Stephen had not read Mary’s message, Stephen was unable to respond. Stephen is thus innocent and should not be worried since he did not seal the legal relationship with Mary.
An analysis reveals that there was no breach of contract since there wasn’t one. According to Knapp et al. (2019; Hawkins 2018; and Levmore 2018), the law of Torts deals with parties that are legally bound. The best way to prove that parties have a legal relationship is through the indication of a valid contract, agreed on by both parties such as the Miranda v. Said 2013 case (Knapp et al., 2019). Mary sent a message ordering her particulars, but Stephen did not neglect her, nor did he respond. If Stephen met and agreed to her terms, the case would be valid, and she deserved compensation. Mary’s claim is not valid as a legal agreement was not made, and there was no relationship between both parties.
Stephen and Robert had not met before the unfortunate incident that left Stephen stranded with commodities. They were both at arm’s length, and a misunderstanding between both caused this scenario. Robert made the order, asking to have the tiles sold to him at $70 per piece instead of $75. Robert, upon receiving mail, did not respond to Stephen alerting him on his decision not to buy the tiles as earlier requested. It is essential to note that a legal relationship had already been made, having that Stephen agreed to deliver the products by the said date. The mistake was on Robert’s side since he failed to terminate the order he had initially been placed. However, it is noted that this case does not lead to a breach of contract. Therefore, Stephen does not have a valid claim against Robert.
An analysis of the case study reveals that there was no valid agreement. It is essential to note that for a contract to be considered valid, an agreement should be formed (Up Counsel, 2019). In this case, both parties differed on the product price. If Robert had agreed to Stephen’s price, then the contract would be valid, warranting compensation eventually since that would qualify as a breach of contract. But there was no legal contract since both parties had not agreed on the product prices. According to Knapp et al. (2019), an offer cannot be used to prove a binding contract, referencing Moulton v. Kershaw 18 N.W. 172. Stephen’s claim is, therefore, invalid as a legal agreement was not made, and there was no relationship between both parties.
Jackson and Stephen used emails to communicate and had a seemingly candid conversation. There was an agreement on the products as well as the price, agreeing to sell at $65. The deal completion lasted three days, with email messages confirming that the parties had both agreed on the order price and quantity as well. However, Jackson later requested if the products would be supplied on 25th February rather than 1st March as earlier required. Margaret made a counter-offer to Stephen of buying 5000 cartons, provided he doesn’t sell to Jackson. It is essential to note that Stephen agreed but made a crucial mistake of not informing Jackson on the change of plans. In reference to Barrie School v. Patch, Jackson does deserve compensation (Knapp et al., 2019). Jackson has a valid claim, considering that a valid contract had been set between both parties, and a legal relationship was therefore achieved as well.
An analysis of this case reveals that Stephen was at fault for backing out on a deal and not informing Jackson that he had changed his mind. In efforts to ascertain whether a contract is valid or not, it is essential to assess whether an agreement is formed (Smits 2017; Poole 2016). In this case, both parties agreed to have the products delivered latest by 1st March. There was a consideration of the product price, but an agreement was set on the same. Since there was a legal relationship, all the aforementioned facts prove that the contract was valid. Jackson’s claim is, therefore, convincing as a legal agreement was made, and there was a relationship between both parties with evidence to show a breach of contract.
The mode of communication between Stephen and John was through the use of letters. The letters detailed the agreement to send the products with confirmation of the order done before 5th February 2014. It is essential to note that there was a logical flow in the conversation where both businessmen sealed the deal with the agreed delivery date is 15th March of the same year. John got a counter-offer where a competitor offered to sell him similar titles at a subsidized cost that was lower than Stephen’s. John agreed to buy the cheaper tiles, forgetting he had already forged a deal with Stephen. Since there was a binding agreement, John’s refusal to purchase Stephen’s tiles indicates a breach of contract, and Stephen deserves compensation since this refusal affects him commercially.
An analysis of this case shows that there was a breach of contract that may have ended up harming Stephen. Confirming to deliver 4000 cartons means Stephen made plans concerning the changes in his inventory stock, and John’s refusal could’ve negatively affected his business. Patricia Hart v. U.S. case can be used to show that Stephen deserved compensation (Knapp et al., 2019). It should be noted that there was a legal agreement, there was a consideration, and a legal relationship was established between both parties (Poole, 2016). If John agreed to buy the products together with those belonging to Stephen’s competitor, then there would be no problem. But since there was a legal contract that was made between both parties, then Stephen deserves compensation.
The case is solely based on a genuine mistake where Stephen’s assistant used the wrong price tag. Sunny put a $35 price on a $75 dollar product. Looking at this case from a quick glance, Victor may seem to have a valid claim, but he doesn’t since there was no legal contract to seal the deal. Victor came to Stephen’s shop and was particularly interested in a particular set of tiles that were priced at $35. Unfortunately for him, the actual price for the tiles was $75, and the $35 price tag was put there mistakenly. According to the law of contract, there should be a ‘consensus ad idem.’ There was no form of the agreement established by both parties, and therefore, a valid deal was not successfully achieved.
It is essential to break down the analysis to ascertain Stephen’s innocence. To begin with, Stephen was not the one who placed the price tags. Additionally, Victor did not confirm the price first before making an offer to buy Stephen’s tiles. According to Stockmeyer (2018; Adriaanse 2016), a contract is not valid if there is no agreement on the particulars of the trade. There needs to be a form of consensus, making the contract an alliance with written proof. A consensus ad idem refers to the meeting of minds on a particular topic or deal, mostly depicted through the use of signatories and witnesses. In this case, Victor assumed that the price tag was correct and did not make attempts to confirm first before purchasing. If Victor purchased the products and was later asked to return them because of the mistake, he would deserve compensation. Since the contract was not valid and the purchase was not made, I would not advise Stephen to compensate Victor.
The relationship between Peter and the manager at the High Fever Restaurant was physical as they discussed alternatives to alcoholic drinks. Peter was later served ale with a decomposing animal inside. I firmly believe that Peter has a valid claim against the restaurant under the tort of negligence as he was served a poisonous drink that led him to be hospitalized. As a result, Peter was in distress for two weeks because of the restaurant’s negligence in providing a drink that was unhealthy for him. In reference to the case of Satish Chandra v. Air India Ltd, restaurants and hotels are always mandated to provide safe products and services for their clients, the consumers (Thomas 2019; Murphy 2018, Karner et al. 2018; Keren 2018). Peter was served something that made him sick and therefore deserved compensation.
An analysis of the subject matter reveals that restaurants should compensate for cases like these where their clients are made sick due to ignorance. It is the restaurant’s job to ensure that the foods and beverages sold are healthy for human consumption (Ames 2018). Peter notified the staff of his allergy to alcohol, indicating that he was articulate to remind them about his health. There was a certain degree of negligence from the restaurant’s side since they ended up selling him a drink that contained an unidentified decomposing animal. Based on the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, caveat emptor comes to play here. Thus, Peter is deemed as a consumer who deserves the right to be compensated, considering the restaurant broke the law of torts in this case.
Sally and Peter were interested in an apartment sold by Joseph in Hong Kong. Sally wanted one whose net floor area was lower than 80%, but Joseph’s area was around 65%. I firmly believe that, according to the Conveyance and Property Ordinance law, the provisional sale and purchase agreement may lose weight if done through an oral agreement, but this case is different since it was written (Community Legal Information Center, 2019). A situation similar to this one is identified as Erlich v. Ron Rebaldo et al. (Knapp et al., 2019). Considering that Joseph had initially lied about the size of the apartment, he believes that rescinding the agreement would make sense for Peter and his wife. Joseph had begun originally by stating his house had a net floor area of 70% when it was 65%, meaning that he attempted to lie and have the sale work towards his favor. Instead of rescinding, I would advise Peter to ask for requisitions that would result in the annulling of the sale.
By carrying out an analysis of the case presented, the vendor, Joseph, was at fault because he initially lied about the size of the house. As aforementioned, the lady wanted a house that was no smaller than 80%, but his net floor space was 65%. Joseph then continued to lie, stating that the free is averaged at 70%. Since Peter was aware of the lie, he has every right to change his mind and ask for a refund. According to the Estate Agents Authority (2019), the seller is at will to annul the sale of the property and should give the tenant not less than seven days to vacate through a written notice. By making requisitions that the vendor cannot meet, the couple is at will to ask for a refund but without compensation. Through this process, I believe that Peter stands a better chance of getting refunded through the right means by following the rule of law.
In the event that GCL breached the contract, then Shun Fat Company Ltd is entitled to enforce the seller’s rights under the agreement. It is essential to note that the deal being negotiated was made between Greenville Company Ltd and Shun Fat Company Ltd. As mentioned in the agreement, Barrows has the right to indemnify SFCL for any liability and loss arising from such agreements. Since SFCL did not seek consent from Barrows, then it is therefore entitled to enforce the seller’s rights.
In the event that SFCL breached the contract, the Greenville Company Ltd is entitled to enforce its rights against Shun Fat Company Ltd (Huntington, 2019). It should be noted that the deal was signed between both parties, and Barrows only allowed its name to be used in the transaction since Shun Fat Company Ltd was acting as a sales agent and not the company itself.
If the value of the contract exceeded $1200000, Barrows would be entitled to enforce the contract against GCL due to breach of contract. According to the details presented, Barrows allowed Shun Fat Company Ltd to handle dealings that didn’t exceed a billion dollars and any amount larger than that would need affirmation from the company.
No, my answer would not be different if Barros knew the contract was in excess of the authorization. The company is still entitled to enforce the contract. Ratifying the contract would sound like a great option, but the agency agreement is of paramount concern. If SFCL goes against the agreement, then Barrows is still entitled to enforce the contract against GCL.
Adriaanse, M.J., 2016. Construction contract law. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Ames, J.B., 2018. A Selection of Cases On the Law of Torts; Volume 2.
Chng, K., Chan, G.K., and Goh, Y., 2019. A Novel Development of Tort Law: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Torts Law Journal (Forthcoming).
Community Legal Information Centre, 2019, Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement, Community Legal Information Centre, Viewed 15th January 2020, <www.hkclic.org/en/topics/saleAndPurchaseOfProperty/provisional_sale_and_purchase_agreement/>
Estate Agent Authority, 2019, Formal Agreement for Sale and Purchase, Estate Agent Authority, Viewed 15th January 2020, <www.eaa.org.hk/en-us/Information-Centre/Publications/Monograph-Conveyancing/-3-Formal-Agreement-for-Sale-and-Purchase>
Fulbrook, J., 2017. Outdoor activities, negligence, and the law. Routledge.
Hawkins, D., 2018. Business Torts. Wisconsin Law Journal.
Huntington, M, 2019, Sales Agent Contract Agreement. Chron, Viewed 15th January 2020, <smallbusiness.chron.com/sales-agent-contract-agreement-74105.html>
Karner, E., Oliphant, K. and Steininger, B.C., eds., 2018. European tort law: basic texts. Jan Sramek Verlag.
Keren-Paz, T., 2018. Torts, egalitarianism, and distributive justice. Routledge.
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M., and Prince, H.G., 2019. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Aspen Publishers.
Levmore, S., 2018. Convergence and Then Downstream Divergence in Torts and Other Law. S. Cal. L. Rev., 92, p.769.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S., 2017. Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Malik, M.E., and Ahmed, N., 2018. Remedies For Breach Of Contract: An Appraisal Of The Contract Act, 1872 Of Pakistan. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, 55(2).
Murphy, J.G., 2018. Philosophy of law: An introduction to jurisprudence. Routledge.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Smits, J.M. ed., 2017. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stockmeyer, N.O., 2018. The Law of Confusion: An Examination of Misunderstanding, Mistake, and Ignorance in Contract Law. Michigan Academician, 45(2), pp.347-353.
Thomas, R., 2019, What to do if food poisoning happens with hotel food?, Law Times Journal, Viewed 15th January 2020, <lawtimesjournal.in/what-to-do-if-food-poisoning-happens-with-hotel-food/>
Up Counsel, 2019, Intention To Be Legally Bound: Everything You Need to Know, Up Counsel, Viewed 15th January 2020, <www.upcounsel.com/intention-to-be-legally-bound>