b- The detriment must have been giving in exchange for the promise. (The promisor must have bargained for the detriment which must have been given in exchange for the promise” 5. Breach: In the contractual terminology, a breach is a violation of a contractual obligation by failing to perform one’s own promise, by repudiating it, or by interfering with another party’s performance. 6. Offeror: In the contractual terminology, the one who makes an offer for the purpose of bargain for something and a contract would be formed as the result of the offer.
Forbearance from asserting a legal claim known to be invalid is not valuable consideration. To be valid consideration, the claimant must subjectively believe in
Wimpy offered to sell the boat to Bluto for $500. Bluto didn’t accept the offer but decided or asked if he could have a week to think about it. This basically shows that there wasn’t an actual contract between Wimpy and Bluto for the purchase of the boat. A contract is also defined as “a promise or several promises that are enforceable in court (Morgan, Shedd & Corley page 246).” This is even though Wimpy orally agreed to not sell the boat for a week. Therefore, this just boils down to a simple agreement.
In this situation, we would look at unilateral mistake which typically involves a material fact. “In general, a unilateral mistake does not afford the mistake party any right to relief from the contact” which “in other words, the contract is enforceable (Miller & Hollowell, 2011). There are two exceptions to where the contract may not be enforceable, “(1) if the other party to the contract knows or should have known that a mistake was made or (2) if the error was due to a substantial mathematical mistake in addition, subtraction, division, or multiplication and was made inadvertently and without gross negligence (intentional failure to perform a duty reckless disregard of the consequences)” (Miller & Hollowell, 2011). References Miller, W. L., & Hollowell, W. E. (2011). Business Law Text & Exercises Sixth Edition.
However, the state or any other individual has no grounds to intervene if you’re not seen to harm others. This would unfairly deprive you of the autonomy that’s rightfully yours and you would cease to be free, in the liberal sense. It could potentially lead to others having control of aspects of your life in which they have no say, something which contravenes the idea of liberalism. This extends further, as the excerpt shows. The state and other individuals cannot intervene if you decide to do something which could potentially harm yourself but not other individuals.
• Was there discussion on justification of a contract? • Was there an agreement on the details of the relationship that contained sufficient certainty on the establishment of a contract? Result: • The claim made by the plaintiff had failed since the judges decided that the parties did not appear to have any legal relations intended. • Appeal by the plaintiff was not allowed but a cross-appeal was. Reasons: • Precedent from the case Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 shows that a promissory estoppel cannot create a cause of action.
Sufficiently complete For an offer to be sufficiently complete it should be clear of; who the buyer and seller is, what is being bought and sold and how much money being given and received. 2. Promissory An offer must have a responsibility to give or do something, an undertaking of liability. When an offer is made the terms need to be specified so it is clear what the parties involved in the offer need to do. In the case of Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969) 121 CLR 353 the Commonwealth government said they would pay a subsidy ‘…of an amount or at a rate to be determined by the Commonwealth’ The issue was whether the government’s statement was a legally enforceable promise.
According to Kant’s theory this is an immoral action. In this case, we are acting in order to reach our desired end of having twenty dollars, not for a good motive. Kant’s morality also requires that we recognize that others must be treated fairly and not as means by which we can achieve our own ends, such as in this scenario. Lastly, we can only consider this action moral
“In spite of the modern acceptance of a broadly based test of unconscionable dealing, the approach of the court when faced with estoppel claims tends to be restrictive. The courts treat such claims ‘with a degree of caution’, mindful of the fact that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel ‘may have the drastic effect of conferring on one person a permanent, irrevocable interest in the land of another, even though he has given no consideration for such acquisition, by way of contractual arrangement, and no legally effective gift of it has been made in his favour ‘” Critically analyse and assess this statement with particular regard to recent academic commentary and modern case law. Word Count = 2554 To evaluate this statement we must examine the cases been bought to the judiciary on the concept of proprietary estoppel, how the judiciary made their decision on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Land is defined by the Law of Property Act 1925 at S205 (1) (ix). When we buy property we do not own that land, the crown owns all the land.
Self interest must be disregarded when deciding what actions are morally right’ Assess this view. If self interest was to be disregarded when deciding what actions are morally right would it mean that I must disregard myself when deciding which actions are morally right despite the consequences? Subsequently, whether I act without regard to myself has no effect on whether the action is moral or not. However, is it rational to not take into account the effect actions may cause? Is it possible to act in a way which also benefits me?