代寫essay服務

五年專注澳洲代寫essay 信譽保證
turnitin檢測 保證原創率 高分通過

本公司成立以來,在代寫essay領域獲得了不錯的口碑,98%以上的客戶順利通過..歡迎大家進行咨詢和享受公司為你提供的全方位服務!不論你的essay有多難,deadline有多急,我們將給你帶來最專業可靠的代寫essay服務。

Order Now

A Case Study of the Contract Law代寫

    A Case Study of the Contract Law
    Issue
      A Case Study of the Contract Law代寫
    In this case, Pat and Big Industry Ltd have entered into a service contract. It is obvious that the dispute is about the performance of the contract. Whether the contract is valid enforceable or not is the first consideration in this case. Another key issue is the Big Industry’s statement repudiation of the contact by Pat when Pat called to deliver all the programs he had worked out. Is there a breach of the contract by Big Industry? Was the conversation in telephone on April 15 not valid because of one particular term in the contract, which states that “no modification of this contract shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by both parties”? To answer these above questions is critical to solve the dispute.
     
    Rule
     
    As to the validity of a contract, four elements should be under consideration: legal capacity of the parties, consent, legality of purpose and form.
    [1] Under Corporation Act 2001, the company has the same legal capacity as an individual to make an agreement. In generally, the terms of a contract regulate the rights and obligations of parties. And the terms consist of express terms and implied terms. In generally, the parties abide by all express terms in a written contact.[2] The implied terms refer to terms which the law implies in a contract even though parties have not discussed in their contract. The implied terms are used to realize the intention of parties to great extent. Another rule is about the performance and termination of the contract. Among the reasons leading to the termination of contract, breach of contract is a main factor. As to the breach of contract, the non-breaching party owes a right to terminate a contract. In generally, an anticipation breach would allow the innocent party a right to repudiate the contract. In Foran v Wight, the court stated that the purchasers could not complete the contract on the due day, but the seller had given an essential term about non-performance two days earlier, which amounted to an anticipatory breach, thus the purchaser was entitled to sue the seller for breaching the contract.[3] As to the remedies for breach of contract, it includes remedies at common law and equitable remedies. Damages are in regulated in common law. It is designed for the innocent party to get a monetary compensation due to a breach of contract.[4] And specific performance, it refers to an order requesting the breaching party to carry out their obligations in accordance with the contract. It is an equitable remedy when the courts think that damages would be inadequate compensation and will not be admitted by the courts in relation to contracts of personal service.[5]
     
    Analysis
     
    a)
    To test the validity of a contract, four elements should be analyzed: legal capacity of the parties, consent, legality of purpose and form.[6] First, the two parties both have capacity. In this case, Pat has entered into a services contract with a corporation – Big Industry Ltd. Under the section 124 of Corporations Act 2001, the corporation can be regarded as an independent person and has legal capacity to enter into a contract within the limits of its power.[7] In this case, the corporation has the power to enter into a service contract with Pat. Second, both parties have genuine consent without exceptional conditions. Third, it is obvious that the contract is not against either public policy or the law. Last, as to the form of the contract, in this case, the contract is under writing form. Therefore, there is a valid enforceable contract between Pat and Big Industry.
     
    As to the terms of the contract, there are express terms and implied terms under common law. The express terms in the contract is the obligations and rights regulated in the contract, and “no modification of this contract shall be valid unless it is in writing and singed by both parties” is an express term which requesting a written form to modify the contract. As to the implied term, in this contract, the contract should be performed in a reasonable time. The time for the service to be carried out is not fixed by the contract only.
     
    Under the term of the contract, the modification of the contract should be in writing and signed by both parties. The April 15 phone call between Pat and Hillary had no effect on the contract terms according to the above term of the contract.
     
    b)
     
    In this case, On April 28, Big Industry responded that the April 15 phone call was a repudiation of their contract. Through analysis above, the April 15 talk did not affect the contract. Thus the contract should be performed as usual. But Big Industry refused to pay anything to Pat which amounted to a breach of contract. Under such circumstance, Pat could sue Big Industry for breach of contract. But in this case, the Big Industry also has some defenses. Under the contact, all the programs should be delivered no later than May 1. Pat should take the obligations and deliver all the programs at a reasonable time. But on April 15 and April 28, Pat called twice to delay his delivering. Under the common law, Pat has breached the contract too. Thus, Big Industry could use Pat’s delay for delivering to defense itself.
     
    c)
     
    As to Pat, the remedy for Pat is to ask for a compensation for damages by Big Industry. He has worked for almost for more than 30 days to write four programs for Big Industry. And during this period of time, he turned away other lucrative works to put all his energy into this work. And his delay for delivery is due to the obsolete computer hardware by Big Industry to some extent. Big Industry’s statement about his repudiation of the contract on April 15 is not valid. It is unfair for Pat to earn no money for his work. Therefore, he could ask for a compensation for it. As to the specific performance, it could not be applied in this case because of a limited range of application.
     
    As to Big Industry, it also has remedies. It could also ask Pat for a monetary compensation due to a delay of delivery. And Big Industry owns rights to terminate the contact for Pat’s breach of contract.
     
    Conclusion
     
    In conclusion, there is a valid enforceable contract between Pat and Big Industry. the April 15 phone call have no effect on the contract. Pat could prevail in a legal action against Big Industry for breach of contract. But Big Industry could defense himself for not carrying out obligations to delivering programs on schedule. Pat could ask for a compensation for Big Industry’s breach of the contract. and Big Industry could also ask for compensation for delay of delivery or request a termination of the contract because of Pat’s breach of contract too.
     
     
     
    References:
     
      A Case Study of the Contract Law代寫
    Case:
    Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385
    Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
    JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282
    L'Estrange v F Graucob [1934] 2 KB 294
    Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
     
    Book:
    Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. Business Law, 6th Edition, p.304
     
    Statute:
    Corporations Act 2001
     
     A Case Study of the Contract Law代寫

    [1] Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. Business Law, 6th Edition, p.304
    [2] See L'Estrange v F Graucob [1934] 2 KB 294; Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
    [3] Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385
    [4] Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
    [5] JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282
    [6] Gibson, A. & Fraser, D. Business Law, 6th Edition, p.304
    [7] Section 124 Corporations Act 2001

在線客服

售前咨詢
售后咨詢
微信號
Badgeniuscs
微信