- 500+ Experts Online to help you 24x7
- Guaranteed Grade or Get Money Back!
- Rated 4.8/5 Out of 5087 Reviews
We Can help!
We can help you in completing your
assignment on time. Learn more about our
exquisite services and see how we can help!
Login or Sign Up With Your Email to Complete the Order ProcessGet Additional $5 Cashback on Sign Up
According to English or British law, parties to the contract is required to fulfill all the essentials of contract such as offer, acceptance, legal intention and consideration. In the absence of any one element, there was no legal relationship take place between the two or more people. The present report is based on various case scenarios which will develop an understanding about the varied contractual aspects. It will shed light on the exemption clauses, leasing agreements, etc. along with their impact on others.
On the basis of the cited case situation, Donna is running the Cloakroom. In this, Donna has a responsibility to give a ticket to the persons who handed over the piece of clothing. In this, a number was mentioned in the front side of the ticket and states on the reverse side. Hence, on such ticket exemption was clearly mentioned such as '' we do not take responsibility or liability for clothing checked into our cloakroom. Give case entails that Travis who was an amazing star handed over his hat to Donna and received a ticket. At midnight, when Travis went to the cloakroom to collect it then he found that there was not. Moreover, in the cloakroom, Donna confused regarding the person to whom he was given the hat of Donna. In this, Donna demands the compensation from Enterprise cafe in relation to the hat worth of $200.
Hence, in this case, situation Enterprise cafe would be responsible to give compensation to Travis for the replacement of hat. According to the case judgment of Chapelton v Barry cafe cannot free itself from the liability to take proper care in against the exemption clause. Moreover, the ticket is only a receipt and exclusion clause was not incorporated into a contract (Smets and Jarzabkowski, 2013). On the basis of this aspect, it is the responsibility of the cafe and Donna to perform their activities with high care. Further, Donna is required to check the number of tickets and thereby give clothes to a suitable person. Hence, by including the exemption clause Enterprise cafe cannot limit its liability towards the guests. Thus, Enterprise cafe is legally obliged to give compensation of $200 to Travis.
The given case situation entails that in the special drink party Donna served To Boldly Go cocktail to me and Adam that contain high quantity of alcohol. Still, being a director me and Adam continuously talk with the guest. In this, Seamus who was invited to the party has not consumed any alcohol at all. Seamus ran an Italian restaurant which was not performed in a good manner. In the party, Seamus said to me and Adam in relation to offering the pizza. In this, an offer has been made by Seamus about giving pizza oven worth of $5000. Hence, in this, an offer has been accepted by both me and Adam in relation to the buying of oven value of $5000. Further, due to intoxication I and Adam fell over another guy which presents that in this we were not in a condition to take a decision.
In the next morning, an oven was delivered by Seamus to Enterprise cafe. Hence, by considering such a situation it can be said that there was no contract has been made between the directors and Seamus. Moreover, at the time of the formation of the contract, I and Adam was not in a condition to think in a proper way. Hence, by taking into account the case judgment of Hart V O'Connor (1985) a drunkard person suffered from temporary incapacity to contract;(Contract Law Capacity Cases, 2016). Thus, at the time when I and Adam took alcohol were not in a condition to form a rational judgment. Hence, such an agreement which was made between the directors and Seamus is completely void. On the basis of the essential elements of contract due to the incapacities of the parties agreement would not be enforceable by law.
In the case situation, it’s clearly mentioned that Enterprise cafe decided to sell a T-shirt and mugs. On the basis of the case, Donna was assigned with the task to put the price tag on coffee mug and t-shirts such as $5 and $35. In this, Donna is mistaken and attached incorrect signs such as on T-shirt $5 and a coffee mug with $35. On the basis of this, one day Peter who loves Star Trek saw the t-shirt and approached Donna with the aim to purchase 5 t-shirts @ 5 each. Hence, it is considered as an invitation to treat on the basis of Fisher v Bell. In this, the court gave judgment that goods which are displayed by the firm along with the price labels are considered as an invitation. In this, the seller has complete authority to either accept or reject the proposal which was made by an offeror or other parties (Jones and Sufrin, 2014). In this, the court clearly mentioned that offeror or seller is not obliged to offer products for which offer was made. On the basis of this, Donna and owner of Enterprise cafe have the right to deny to Peter for the T-shirt. Thus, the present case clearly reflects that the owner of Enterprise cafe is not obliged to sell T-shirts to Billie @ 5 each.
Case situation presents that being a director decision had taken by me in relation to terminate the employment of Donna. Moreover, in the past, Donna performed several mistakes such as losing hats, mixing up signage and getting us drunk, etc. Hence, scenario entails that at the time of leaving the organization Donna said to me that she started to join another cafe which was situated on the corner. Along with this, she also claimed that a high level of and best efforts will be made by her to make a remarkable contribution to the growth and development of the restaurant. On the other side, in the employment contract, it was clearly mentioned that she has no authority to join another cafe which was established within the radius of five kilometers for the period of 24 months from the date of employment.
Hence, the same was signed and agreed by Donna at the time of joining Enterprise Cafe. Thus, it is considered as an express term in which all the terms and conditions are inserted and agreed by both the parties at the time of the formation of a contract. Thus, by referring the case of Esso Petroleum V Mardon (1976) it can be stated that clause which was mentioned in the contract can be enforced by law (Express and implied terms of the contract, 2016). Hence, in this, being a director all the aspects related to employment are mutually discussed with Donna. Hence, she has no right to join another restaurant within the area of five kilometers for a period of 12 months.
By referring the case situation it has been assessed that there are mainly three requirements which landlord have to fulfill in writing are enumerated below:
Exclusive possession: It is one of the main ingredients of the lease which must be present in the agreement. Exclusive possession implies for the right which was provided by the landlord to the concerned authority in relation to making use of the premises.
Determinate term: In accordance with this aspect it lessor is required to mention the commencement period on the leasing agreement. By referring the case of Furness v Bond (1888) it has been determined that agreement in relation to the lease will be voided unless the starting date was not mentioned on it (Vago, 2015). Thus, the leasing agreement must contain information regarding the period of lease.
Term less than that of grantor: It entails that the period of the lease agreement will be less than the right that grantor possesses. Hence, the ending period of the lease must be present in the agreement.
Along with all such aspects lease provider needs to mention clear information regarding the landlord insurance and furnitures. Hence, by including such information lessor can make the contract more valid.
In this case, the director wants to install old cinema row seats alongside long tables. These seats are setting down in pair of 4 and bolted. Such furniture will not be unbolted and moved around because it would involve lots of work. On the basis of this aspect, it is assumed that there were no aspects mentioned in the agreement related to the fixing the furniture which cannot be moved. Hence, by considering such aspect it can be said that it is the accountability of the owner of the restaurant to take away the seats while vacate the premises (Hiltunen, 2012). Moreover, under lease, lessee has a responsibility to perform their activities according to the contractual aspects. Hence, in the case of default landlord has right to make sue on the owner of the restaurant for compensation.
From the above report, it has been concluded that both the parties of the lease is required to perform according to the contractual terms and condition. Besides this, it can be inferred that by including exemption clauses parties to the contract cannot limit their liabilities.
Get all these features for
Will get back to you within 24 hours