|← Illegal Termination of Work Contract||Wiki →|
The law that is applicable in this case is the law of contract. The court did use this law to draw it judgment on the case. The judge did use the various elements of the law of contract to determine whether the contract between the two parties that is Mickey Corporation and Donald Trumpet was legally bidding. The contract that existed between the parties was related to an agreement between the two parties on the issue of land. Donald had agreed to buy a piece of land from the Mickey Corporation at a future date. Donald a party to the contract failed to honor the contract. The defendant in this case is Donald while the plaintiff is Mickey Corporation.
In order to determine whether the ruling after the trail was right it is important to first to discuss the various elements of a contract. One of the elements of the contract is an offer which states the terms of the contract. In our case there was an offer with all the terms of the contract.
Secondly a contract should have an acceptance. This element states that the party to the contract must agree with the terms of the contract. In our case the two parties did agree to the terms of the contract. The acceptance can be done orally or through a written form. Therefore this condition that makes a contract legally bidding was fulfilled.
In conclusion the ruling was right because the contract had fulfilled all the requirements for it to be legally bidding to the two parties. Therefore, it was up to Donald to honor the terms of the contract and execute them. The contract had an offer which stated the terms of the contract. Where by Donald was to buy at a future date a piece of land from Mickey. On the other hand, the parties to the contract agreed to execute the terms of the contract.
The law that can be applied in this case is the law of contract. My advice to Heffer will be that he should not file a suit against Fatcat Insurance Limited because he has no ground to win the case. The party to the contract failed to comply with the terms of the contract that were stated in the offer. The offer is an important element in any contract as it states the terms of the contract to which the parties entering into the contract are expected to abide with. In our case Heffer failed to abide by the terms of the contract. His failure to attach the required mail during payment of the premium shows that he did not comply with terms of the contract. In conclusion he stands no legally ground to prove to the court that Fatcat Insurance Limited failed to honor the contract
In this case the law that is applicable is the law of contract. In order to understand whether Celtic will be able to defend the Byrd case it is important first to understand the essentials of the law of contract. These essentials/elements will form the basis of arguing whether the contract is enforceable or is not enforceable. These elements of a contract are the basis that the lawyers of the defendants and plaintiff use to form their arguments to represent their clients. In this case Byrd is the plaintiff while the defendant is Boston Celtic Corporation.
The main step toward issue to do with contract is first to ensure that the contract in real essence it exists. In this case it is important to understand whether these elements of a contract are in existence so that the contract can be legally bidding to both Byrd and Boston Celtic Corporation is bidding to the two parties.
The first element of a contract is an offer. The offer can be defined as that expression of readiness to enter into a contract by a bidding to particular terms which are made by the offer or, the intention in this case are that if the effort is going to be accepted, then the contract will be bidding to the party in question. In order for the contract to be enforceable in the court of law it must fulfill this condition. This condition forms the basis of determining whether both the parties to the contract really accepted the terms of the contract or not. In this case it very clear that there was an offer where the defendants and the plaintiff agreed on the terms of the contract. On one part the defendant agreed to the terms that were offered by the plaintiff.
The second element of a contract is the issue of acceptance. In order for a contract to be legally bidding there must be acceptance from both the parties to the contract to abide to the terms of the contract. Acceptance can be defined as that absolute expression as well as the unconditional covenant to the various terms that have been outlined in the offer. The acceptance can be in form of writing and can also be made orally.
It is important for the acceptance to exactly fulfill the intentions of the offer. In this case Byrd and Celtic Corporation agreed to the terms of the offer. Therefore it is very clear that the contract is legally bidding to the two parties. Another important element of a contract is what is known as counter offer. This one is not in any way the same as acceptance. It does differentiate the original offer. In order for a contract to be legally biding it must fulfill this condition.
In this case the Celtic Corporation has no ground to justify that the contract that they entered against Byrd. The contract that entered by the company and the plaintiff fulfilled the various elements of the contract. Therefore, Celtic has no ground to win the case. It will lose that case and therefore there is no need of failing to honor the contract.
The law that is applicable in this case is the law of sales of good. Sale of good contract is a contract whereby the seller agrees to transfer property in goods to the buyer for money consideration that is called price. In order for the contract of sales of good to be leally biding it must fulfill the following conditions. The case shows that the parties of the contract seem to have dishonored the contract thereby causing problem on the part of the parties.
One of the terms of the contract that makes it legally bidding is that the seller must have the right to sell. It is important for the seller to have the right to sell the item in consideration. The right to sell the item comes in when the seller has the ownership title. Another important term that must be fulfilled in order for the contract of sale of good to be legally bidding is no encumbrance. This condition states that the third party to the contract should not have any interest in any the subject matter of contract because the buyer will end up not enjoying the item.
Suitability of purpose is another condition that should be fulfilled so that the contract of the sale of good can be legally biding. This entails that the item that is being sold to the customer should suit the purpose of the customer. Sale by description is another terms of sale of good contract. This where by the seller has to ensure that he/ she sells the right item to the buyer according to the description of the buyer.
The following are the rights that Prancing Horse Motors ltd has over the product, the right of lien, right of stoppage in transit. In this case Prancing Horse Motors. Ltd will be successful in the case. It is important for the seller to have some right over the good, these rights usually helps the owner to reclaim the goods if payment is not made as per the agreement of the contract.
The company has the ground to prove it meets al the terms of the contract of sale of good. The terms of the sale of good are very clear. The company did meet all the terms such the suitability of the purpose, sample by description and finally the company had the right of sale. The defendant has no ground to win the case. In this case the defendant is Sloop John B while the plaintiff is Prancing Horse Motors ltd.
In conclusion it I believe that the Prancing Horse Motors will convince the court to enforce the sale of good contract so that it can receive the damages which amounted to $ 148,000. The company stands a better chance given that it did respects the terms of the contract of the sales of good.