Business Law Case Studies

Based on The Exemption Clauses in Common Law, although the hotel have displayed many signs stating that “Management will not be responsible for any valuables lost if these are not

By an agreement in writing, prepared without professional assistance, and headed “Agreement between C. and the O. Company”, C. granted to the company, in consideration of the sum of £5, the sole right for a specified period to quarry and remove stone from land owned by him and the company agreed to pay royalties at rates specified in the agreement. The agreement also contained provision for its extension and an authority by C. to the company to pay all moneys connected with the agreement to his wife and himself as joint tenants. The agreement was signed by C., by a person on behalf of the company and by the wife.

Facts: P sued D to for money damages tied to a partnership agreement, who were former partners with D. Although D claimed P breached a prior agreement, the trial court nonetheless ruled against D.

“In the spring of 1886 the plaintiff, learning that the defendants had some "polled Angus cattle" for sale, was desirous of purchasing some of that breed, and, meeting the defendants, or some of them, at Walkerville, inquired about them, and was informed that they had none at Walkerville, "but had a few head left on their farm in Greenfield, and they asked the plaintiff to go and see them, stating that in all probability they were sterile and would not breed." In accordance with said request, the plaintiff, on the fifth day of May, went out and looked at the defendants ' cattle at Greenfield, and found one called "Rose 2d," which he wished to purchase, and the terms were finally agreed upon at five and one-half cents per pound, live

Harry (H) who is the father of James (J) is attempting to sue J for a breach in contract and is seeking damages of $30,000 which he believes is the outstanding amount that is owed to him by J. This case touches on the fundamental concepts of contract law where H can only claim damages if the formation of a valid contract between the two parties is evident via the elements of a contract, including intention, agreement, consideration, legal capacity, genuine consent and legality of objects must be established. Once these elements are satisfied, the terms of the contract need to be evaluated to deem whether the contract between H and J is enforceable. Once it has been established that the contract is

The Board of Road Commissioners for Kent County (Board) (defendant) had a license agreement to place a snow fence on land owned by Rogers’(plaintiff) husband. The Board set up the snow fence pursuant to the license agreement. Under the license agreement, the fence, including the anchor posts, would be removed by the Board at the end of the winter season. At the end of one winter season the Board removed the snow fence but did not remove a steel anchor post that protruded six to eight inches above the ground. The grass in the area where the post was located grew to a height that completely hid the post from one’s view. On one particular day in July, while Rogers’ husband was mowing an area where the snow fence had been located, the mowing bar on her husband’s tractor struck the steel post that was hidden from view. As a result of the impact, Rogers’ husband was thrown from the seat of the tractor. Rogers’ husband died from the accident. Rogers sued the Board for

In this case, firstly it is critical to determine the facts base on the case description and secondly should apply for the relevant issues and indicates the statutory provision, which applies the situation. After that, using those evidences to prove whether the contract exists or not. Other than that, it is also necessary to point out the damage for Billy. As a result, a possible conclusion is that Billy should be entitle to get the extra $20,000 and the share from Choy, this is regarding to the oral contract between the two parties Choy and Billy.

Lord Scarman, Woodar Investment Development Limited v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 571

An agreement can also not amount to a contract unless each party gives some ‘consideration’ to the other. In bilateral contracts the consideration of both parties takes the form of a promise to do something in the future.[6] In Currie vs Misa the definition of consideration was made ‘ A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to on party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other.’ Colvin is offering to give £100,000 in the future and Patricia is offering to not sell the plane for five days. This also fits Sir Frederick Pollocks definition of consideration as being ‘the price of promise.’[7] Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, it must have some economic

Analyzing the case with all elements in mind, we concluded that a contract was in fact created. Dirk, who is pursuing Biff in court, will put up a case due to the oral contract that was indeed made. In this case there is no need for a written contract because Biff verbally agreed to buy five Schwinn custom police mountain bikes specially ordered by Dirk. For this non-resellable goods exception to apply, the seller, Dirk, must have made a substantial beginning in manufacturing the goods. To show this is true, Dirk went out of his way to create an order for Biff that was special for the Police department, and by doing so, Dirk cannot return/resell the bikes, and he is at a loss of $17,500.

10. Although the existence of the principle was not doubted, the reasoning of Rowlatt J. seemed to be that no contract existed at all because of the doctrine. The reasoning suggested an absence of capacity to contract. If so, The Amphitrite was wrongly decided . The circumstances in which the doctrine applied and consequences of its application have not proceeded on the basis of an absence of capacity in the Crown and its instrumentalities to contract. Rather, issues of damages for breach or compensation were pursued.

In Stilk v Myrick [1809]1, it was held that on the evidence of the signed contract the plaintiff was bound to do a duty under an existing contract and that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract.

Judgment of Lister and Others v. Hesley Hall Limited [2001] UKHL 22, achieved from British and Irish Legal Information Institute

Promissory estoppel was designed by the obiter dictum provided by Lord Denning in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd[ Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees Ltd [1947] KB]. In this case the principle of promissory estoppel was described elaborately. The application of this doctrine was actually followed by a pervious decision of which Justice Denning relied on. In the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway[ Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1876) L.R. 2 App. Cas.] the Court in this case confirmed the continuation of promissory estoppel in the contract law. In the case of Tool Metal manufacturing v Tungsten[ Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten (1955) 1 WLR.] , the court also apply the proposition of consideration and its relation with the contract

The Arnold case is about the interpretation of a clause concerning the service charge contribution in the leases of chalets. The lessees were presumed to pay ninety pounds the first year, and this cost increased by ten percent every year or every three years. The lessees tried to escape this clause by reporting that into the leases, a limit or a cap on the service charge have been placed.