Essay Examples on contract law
Essay Examples
Topic: contract law
The issue of case is Tom hires some massage chairs form Jack. Later, Tom plan to cancel it, but Jack still wants continue this contract. Thus, Tom suggests that reduce the rent from $500 to $250 and Jack accepted. However, after seven months Jack writes a letter to Tom request the rest of the rent for the past six months. The question is that Tom has to pay the rent.
Jack did accepted the reduction by Tom, so it should be a promissory estoppels. It means if one party to a contract, by its behavior, leads the others enter to the contract to believe some terms that this exists between them. The court will support that state of situation rather than the terms of the contract.
The following is five preconditions for promissory estoppels:
Plaintiff Promise not to enforce
According to the case, the promise was from the original rent $500 reduce to $250 and this offer was form Jack. Lastly, Tom accepted the offer and continue with the contract.
Plaintiff intends defendant to rely on it
Tom planed to cancel the contract with Jack. However, Jack offered half price to him, so Tom just continue the contract. Blazely v Whiley (1995) 5 Tas R 254 is similar situation. The defendant trust the plaintiff that they can get the cheaper offer for purchasing the house, if they paid the plaintiff’s mortgage plus and rent. As this offer, the defendant paid the money, but the plaintiff was estopped form the original agreement.
Defendant’s reliance
Tom did trust Jack’s offer and paid only $250 for last six months. Similarly, Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101 is the plaintiff that is failed to honour a promise. The judge decided that because of parents’ failed to honour a promise, so the defendant was able to rely on promissory doctrine. Applying to this case, Tom also can rely on the promise that Jack made, because he failed to honoour a promise.
Defendant’s detriment
Refer to the case, Tom’s hotel had high vacancy, so if it is not half price, he is not able to bear this cost. If he needed to pay the full amount, he will not continue the contract with Jack.
Unjust enrichment of plaintiff
It is unjust that Jack can get back the money for last six months. The reason is Jack already promised to Tom that the rent is going to reduce, so there is unfair situation.
Central London Property Trust v High tree House Ltd [1974] 1KB 130 is same circumstances as this case. The defendant was paying 2500 pounds per month, however defendant wanted to cancel the contract. Yet, plaintiff offered half price to defendant which is 1250 pounds per month and both of them have agreement. Same situation as this case, the plaintiff wanted to get back last few months money. The result is the High court decided that plaintiff is not going to success, because it was a promise for future intention and not for the present and past factor. Moreover, the promise was the intention to lead defendant to into a lease.
In conclusion, Tom does not need to pay back last six months rents according to the evidence. It is the promissory estoppels. However, Jack can request Tom that starts to pay the full amount $500 per month from now. It is because Jack is not able to request for the past, however he has the ability to change the existing contract. It also needs to depend Tom accept the offer or not.
Reference Case
Blazely v Whiley (1995) 5 Tas R 254
Central London Property Trust v High tree House Ltd [1974] 1KB 130
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Topic: Civil law
Issue: Does Chelsea owe a duty of care?
Does Graham owe a duty of care?
Does Harry owe a duty of care?
Analysis:
Does Chelsea owe a duty of care?
Yes, she does owe duty of care. The reason is as the owner of restaurant, she should ensure the food is safe and health for serving customers. According to the case, the restaurant is aim to service specific catering for people with diet concerns and chemical allergies. Thus, if the food goes wrong, it is foreseeable as the restaurant operator. Chelsea as occupier, so she owes the occupier negligence liabilities.
Does Graham owe a duty of care?
Graham as a fish wholesaler, he must understand what kind of fish and salt that Chelsea needs and wants. As he used the wrong kind of salt, it cause people sick and damage of the cafe reputation. As the result, he definitely owes a duty of care and the issue is foreseeable.
Breach of the duty of care:
Reasonable person in same circumstance
Graham as a fish wholesaler, he is able to foresee the issue, if he is using wrong salt. He is a reasonable person to ensure all the food that he supplied should be safe.
Likelihood, Foresseabilty of Harm
As the aim of the restaurant, that is providing special catering for allergic and diet concerns people. Thus, the risk of hurting people is really high, if they using wrong food.
Seriousness of Harm
In the case, because of the wrongly salted fish, many customers have to go to hospital and some of them need to stay in hospital for few months. That is really serious issue and it is possible to cause people die as the reacting of allergic. For example, Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479, Maree Whitaker successfully sued Christopher Rogers as an ophthalmic surgeon. The reason is because of his failure that cause her eye nearly blind, and this cause serious consequences for her.
Burden of Precautions
If the food controlling is careless, the result will be same as the case and it is foreseeable. However, Graham as the fish wholesaler did not take the responsible to ensure the food that provide to restaurant is on the standard.
Social Utility
The food should be safe and with special diet concern or allergic required, because the restaurant is providing specific catering.
As Graham’s negligence action, it caused the reputation damage of restaurant and customers’ health. The damages are going to continue influence to the restaurant. This Lord Denning said in Cork v Kirby McLean Ltd (1952) 2 ALL ER 402 at 407: if the damage happened because of the fault, then that fault is in fact cause the damage. Thus, as this case, Graham used the wrong salt, then the damage happened. As the result, the damage is relied on Graham in this case.
Does Harry owes a duty of care?
Harry, who is a professional fish marketer, engages with Chelsea to ensure the mistake is not going to happen and he advised to use “Fish South America”. Moreover, Harry give suggestion to Chelsea about the supplier and products. However, Harry did not mention other chemical added within the product to Chelsea, so the disaster happened again. As the result, he must owes a duty of care.
Similar Graham part, as a professional fish marketer, he should able to foresee the issue happen if they added some other chemical to the fish. It is a huge risk to the restaurant, because the aim of it is providing special catering to people who has allergic and diet concern. Using wrong food to the restaurant is happened before, and this time also cause people sick and restaurant’s reputation drop. In some case, people may die with over reaction of allergic, thus as a professional fish marketer, he should notices this.
In this case, Harry owes a negligent misstatement. The reason is he advice that Chelsea purchase fish through “Fish South America” and ensure nothing will go wrong. Furthermore, he is a professional person and Chelsea did explain the aim of the restaurant. Thus, Harry must understand the special requires from Chelsea. It is likely plaintiff would have damage of business due to the defendant proves wrong information, that the case is Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 24. Applying this to the case, Harry as a professional marketer, he must have enough knowledge of fish product. However, he provides wrong information to Chelsea and it causes lots of damage to the business and herself.
In conclusion, Chelsea owes a duty of care as the owner of the restaurant. Consumers are able to sue her as providing failed product. Moreover, Graham owes a duty of care. As the fish wholesaler, he used the wrong salt even he understand the special require of the business. It is a negligence action and causes huge damages for customers and the restaurants. Thus, Chelsea as the owner and customers are possible that request compensate. On the other hand, Harry as the professional marketer, but he provides the wrong information to Chelsea. It is a negligence misstatement. In this part, Harry owes the duty of care to Chelsea and consumers.
Reference case
Cork v Kirby McLean Ltd (1952) 2 ALL ER 402 at 407
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 188 CLR 24
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
