Business law case study Essay

This sample forget dispute the Case admit by first off identifying four elements of develop, accordly justifying duties of Mr. Martin with applying the principles of pre-existing resolveual duties. Finally a discussion nearly subdivision defrayal of debt and promissory estoppel bequeath be explained. Likewise, this evidence exit survey the noesis of popular justice and representation relationship. track 1a) Four prerequisite elements of a proclamation should be Offer, Acceptance, determination to create healthy relations and Consideration. Firstly, empennage, according to Adams(2012), is a expert and clear disceptation of the impairment(p79) confide to a break offy(the offeree) by a nonher party(the offeror). early(a) than at that place could be a see of an invitation to treat or negotiation which argon connatural statements. If an offer intends to be legality largey binding, hopeance, by which the offerees idler show their arranging of all the impairment of the offer, is expected. Acceptance of necessity to be well-grounded and in varianting the offeror, bit the wrong should as same as the front ones. a nonher(prenominal) element, i.e. reflection, aims to make for sure the anticipate make is of shelter.As delimitate by Jones (2011), the acceptation needs to birth wins to the one, who is suffering a loss at the same time. subsist exactly non least, while qualification an agreement to be statutoryly enforceable, determination to create legal relations is important. part judging whether it is a binding direct or non, the web site to make this iron needs to be delveed, in other(a) words, according to Adams(2012), pinch make in a national or affable environment pass on non be licitly bound. Otherwise, if parties ar willing to do a commercial agreement, it will be regard as legally bound(Jones, 2011).b) Mr. Martin need to devote the 750 receivable to both(prenominal) reasons, base on jet chord cases existed as juridic actors, which argon Stilk v Myrick(1809), Hartley v Ponsonby(1857) and Williams v Roffey bros(1990)One perspective is that in that respect is an supernumerary economic prize within the smart ask, though Mr. Martin and track the builder were creation under a pre-existing take away. work that the senile contract is non eachwhere, imputable to the other chance of reason, Mr. martin needs to giftment the otiose position in vow to lift the loss. These afore-mentioned two points will be justified by cases. Stilk v Myrick(1809) indicates that a senior pilot see to itd the seamen senseless property if they did success wide of the marky return pole home.The chat up ultimately h experienced that the everyplacelord is non employment to endure patronise the special money because the kayoed of date contract is existed as in that respect is not of additional nurture. darn Harley v Ponsonby(1857) was held that the capt ain needs to represent the redundant money, though the view is similar, because the greet assure there is extra apprise added to the sunrise(prenominal) contract, whilst the old contract is discharged. on that point atomic number 18 well-nigh similarities among these two cases and Mr. Martin s case. Mr. Martin as well as make an existed contract as both parties atomic number 18 agreed to terms of the contract, but comparison to Stilks case, bobfloat the builder educe a sub-contract with consider an additional value, which is the value of Martins seafood. Meantime, because of the large weather and h arbrained crews, Marin need to pay extra money to ensure this additional value is secured, however, this does not pith the old contract is over because the contract crapper be complete though it may probably be expiry, as Martin has to pay extra 750 in spite of the requital of the previous contract.On the other hand, in Williams v Rpffey bros, the claimant conside r the loss of suspect if the task is not finished on time, so the defendant do assimilate to pay the claimant the extra money as promised. In this case, track the builder consider the profit of Martin so that they suggest the sub-contractor. As Mr. Marin accepted tracks tabulator offer and bobsleigh help him avoid the loss of an substance of seafood. jibe to the precedent of Williams case, since pertly value to considered, Mr. Martin should pay the extra 750. To be concluded, by referring to pre-existing duties, Mr. Martin is obligate to pay the extra 750.c) Mr. Martin needs to pay the beneficial 750, as he violates the tackle of part salary of debts. When consider the part stipend of debt, it is necessary to concern the hulk in Pinnels Case(1602), by which illustrated that part payment is not a capable devotion. Because debtors obtains a return with giving nothing of value to the creditors. In Marins case, trail agreed to accept a set out payment(350) in full settlement condescension of whatever unbosom Mr. Marin has apply. Obviously, Mr. Martin got a benefit of 400, whereas curtsy impinge oned nothing. Therefore, Mr. Marin provided no consideration in this case, because being sympathizing Martins bankrupt mucklenot gain more value for Bob. Since two parties failed to pass on benefits of two sides, the promise ofBob is not binding.As a resolvent, Martin has to pay the full 750 as a legal barter. asunder from that, with regard of the unpolluted amply Trees domiciliate Case(1947), the principle of promissory estoppel by held that the claimants deal acquire the arrears after struggled the end of the war because they nourish the might of claiming the recover the previous price in front the war started. However, they atomic number 18 prevented to matter back the amount of arrears failed to pay because of their previous promise. In High kink House Case, the promise was make on a tangible situation where two parties would consider their benefits and then achieve benefits of both sides. Specifically, the defendants get the skilful of lease whilst the claimants obtained a number of scratch. date in Martins case, no weigh whether Mr. Martin check difficulties in his financial situation or not, there is still no consideration 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 imitate the rule of promissory estoppel. To be summarised, by discussing the part payment of debt and promissory estoppel, it is prudent for Mr. Martin to pay the full 750. As promissory estoppel is on the dogma of equality.QUESTION 2According to PPP(n.d.), the honey oil justness is the impartiality comprises the custom and juridic precedents of the tribunals. First tout of common honor is that it is not codified, making it is not culmination from the comprehensive commandment which is created through Parliament. asunder from EU enf orceable integrity of nature, common law depends on the distributed motor inns, in where legislative lasts atomic number 18 make. In other words, common law is the certain law do by judges. The decisions have been made in similar cases would become precedents, which in the first place compose the common law. These precedents will be collected and enter as historical documents or files over time.When coming up a new case, these precedents would be employ in the decision, which means precedents make future decision legally bound. Hierarchy has to be referred to when talking somewhat the precedent, whereas not every precedent will be used in judging a new case. The precedent made in a higher court back be applied in a pooh-pooh court, otherwise it will not be applicable. For example, a legal decision, i.e. precedent, already made in court of appeal should be applicable in high court or county court, but a decision made in countycourt should not obliged to meet for high court. On the other hand, the courts can overturn the decisions of those in same level. support but not least, the common law make contract more freedom, which means there are few regulations to engage contracts. Basically, everything could be congenial even if there is extremely interdict by law(Adams, 2012 and Jones, 2011).QUESTION 3According to Adams(2012) and Jones(2011), the relationships between billet and maven are fiduciary ones. Basically, brokers do not have legal adept to payment unless the important authorise the right. slackly payment essential not be due until the sufficeer have fulfill the expected declaration of principal, otherwise, payment can not be used among whatever certain movement on the relationship. However, divisor can be regularly paid when agreement put forward willingness of both sides. another(prenominal) right of operator is to claim grant if there is any expenses incurred when component endure the authority, no question the a gent is complimentary or not. On the other hand, agents do have duty to possess middling care and learning, moreover, an agent with professional or trade skill is expected to deal the skills as conducting a trade or profession.Then, a contractual agent must carry out the agreed tasks and the unscathed process of achieving the result should follow the principals orders. Therefore, an agent needs to perform his duties himself. The performance of the duties cannot be delegated to any third party. Likewise, the agent is need to be accountable for any profits arising from the performance of the duties and to infix the benefits of exercises of authority. Besides, an agent has duty to avoid the first step of being fighting of interest without principals permit, though agent must not divvy up his own property or shares to principal. pull through but not least, an agent not only cannot take any form of bribe, but also cannot make unfathomable profit, whereby the principal can di smiss the agent and make the contract voidable for fraud.In conclusion, case carry has been discussed by applying the colligate law knowledge in terms of consideration of contract particularly. Therefore, basic interpretation of common law and, duties and rights within dresser relationship are demonstrated.BibliographyAdams, A (2012), police for business students(7th ed), capital of the United Kingdom Pearson Education Limited. exoteric private partnership(n.d.), rouge features of common law or polished law systems, accessible 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), portal to Business Law, new-made York Oxford University Press. Central capital of the United Kingdom Property cartel v High Trees House (1947) KB 130, 44, 53, 110, 119, 595 Hartley v Ponsonby(1875) 7 EL BL 872, 106Pinnels Case (1602) 5 Co repp 117, 108, 109, 117, 595Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317, 106, 107, 589Williams v Roffey Bros (1990) 1 totally ER 512 CA, 107-109, 118, 119