A contract refers to a promise, an agreement or commitment of two or more different people in a condition where failure of one party may lead to law enforcement. These promises are what defines duration and rights to the parties involved. When both parties disagree on either areas of their concern or they break the terms and clauses in their contract form then the court intervenes and comes up with a clear decision to avoid fraudulent activities. Therefore, incase one party breaches the contract the other can decide to take legal actions to be compensated. The following scenario concerns different parties undergoing a lease contract with some different terms to be met (David 2008).
In this case, Christie and Angelo have a contractual relationship in which the two have entered into a leasing contract. The leasing contract for onsite caravan costs $150 weekly rental amount. Angelo has decided to increase the amount to $200m due to complain from Christie who is considering leaving for another caravan charging $170; the two have negotiated and orally agreed $175. The issue of concern is that the amount Angelo is claiming is written in the contract unlike the negotiated contract for $175 which was made verbally. Additionally, Christie is claiming for his rights also as outlined in the contract in which silence is supposed to be observed.
The consent of contract and invalidating conditions have to be considered in this case since Angelo did not disclose early on the amount that Christie will pay to allow Christie to move to the other caravan. The Ford motor co. vs. AUEFW case (1969) which was based on negotiation to make an agreement in which it was held that Ford could not take legal actions against the defendant trader if it was known that the defendant did not allow for negotiation to take place. Additionally, according to the case of Scammel vs. Ouston case (1941), states that Ouston ordered a van from Scammel on understanding the balance on payment of the purchase price could be paid on hire purchase term over two years. Scammel used a number of different hire purchase terms and the specific time of his agreement with Ouston was never actually fixed. When Scammel failed to deliver the van, Ouston sued for breach of contract. It was held that the action failed on the basis that no contract could be established due to the uncertainty of the terms, no specific hire purchase terms had been identified (Taylor 2009).
This contract lacks clear form of presentation since it is made in both writing and verbally hence leading to confusion to Christie. There is a lot of misrepresentation in this case, whereby agreements are made but not adhered to negligently in order to fraud the other party. A well agreed contract needs to be undertaken with a lot of integrity among the parties since in case it is breached, and one of the partners is believed to have suffered a loss, then definitely that is a court case and the defendant can be made liable for compensation provided there is false information or one lied in order to benefit. Moreover, for a contract to be valid the both parties must show or demonstrate offers and acceptances made (Smith 2002).
In this situation, according to Ford Motor vs AUFW case, Christie made a request to Angelo on moving to another cheaper caravan in the sense that the other one was for $170 cheaper compared to the current one which had increased to $200. But instead of Angelo taking the negotiation seriously to reach an agreeable decision or even to dismiss Christie, Angelo decided verbally to agree on rent for $175 to lie to Christie because there was a written contract at the beginning. Thus,it shows some negligent misrepresentation.
Christie and the Angelo can take Angelo to court because they have evidences of the receipts for $175 that Christie was paying as they had agreed before it was reversed.
In the case of Scammel vs Ouston, based on the receipts showing the amount Christie has been paying, it is enough evidence that there was an oral agreement made although is not shown in the written contract.
The court in such a situation could conclude that Christie is not supposed to make the additional payments to Angelo since there is evidence to show that fraudulent activities were done in order to provide the tenant (Christie) with wrong information for the benefit at the end.
Ali a resident in caravan entered into a leasing contract with Angelo immediately after they came into the country with the family as refugees. Ali decided to rent on site caravan with written information that all residents are entitled to enjoy peace and quiet and no expectation of nuisance from the rest of the residents at all. The issue here is that Ali wants to move out due to the clause that allows them to enjoy peace, and quiet, without paying the full amount of the lease since the family is no longer in peace and quiet as they deserve.
In such a situation, the contract is written and each of the partners had agreed to engage into a contractual relationship for lease contract without predetermining what is probable to occur in the future. Ali failed to understand that it is difficult for the landlord to regulate or control the tenant’s freedom of speech and expression of which in turn may lead to noise in caravan. They both have legal capacity and consideration although Ali thought that in exchange, his family would experience peace and silence in order to forget about the past since they were refugees. Despite Ali’s thought or wish, the contract was not for service of peace and silence, but rental leasing for caravan which is the main agreement that was made and recorded in the contract (Lowe 2004).
The disagreement between Ali and Angelo in this situation turns to be more over serious and a great solution is needed in order to leave both parties at peace and silence as they stated. The case of Derry vs. Peek (1889) stated that the director of a company issued a prospectus inviting the public to subscribe shares. The prospectus stated that the company had the power to run trams by steam power, but it did not only have the power to operate horse drawn trams; it required the permission of the board of trade to run the steam trams. The directors assumed that the permission would be granted, but it was refused. When the company was wound up, the directors were sued for fraud. It was held that there was no fraud since the directors believed the statement in the prospectus. They may have been negligent but not fraudulent.
Another great consideration can be retrieved from Murphy’s Law. Murphy stated that before signing a contract it is important to consider some of the negative effects or what may make the actual performance expensive or difficult (Eisenberg 2002). And Murphy concluded that an expensive or difficult actual performance prove that one entered into a contract without putting into consideration some of the factors that may happen in the future. Hence, encouraging people to enter into a contract on which they will meet their obligations (Frank 2011).
To analyze this case with the one for Derry and peek (1889), the landlord (Angelo) entered into this agreement with Ali for rental purposes but made that clause about the code of behavior whereby the tenants are supposed to be peaceful and observe silence. Despite the fact that the contract is made, it is the right of the two parties to be satisfied with the outcomes, and if not then the decisions can be reversed in the court (Richards 2003). In this case, the affected partner can take legal action in order to come up with a clear and trustworthy decision.
According to Murphy’s Law, Ali and Angelo did not take consideration of what may be the outcome from their expectations. This is because Ali expected peace and silence as well as caravan without considering negative effects uncontrollable which may bar them from achieving their expectations. In the same case, Angelo made a clause in the contract in order to market the caravan without putting that clause in use as required (Stone 2002). Thus, in this case the issue of concern is on activity that is not easy for the landlord to control, and Angelo can decide to take Ali to court to pay for the amount owing.
From the above cases and principles, Ali is liable for paying the whole year lease amount since the court may conclude that Angelo made negligent misrepresentation but did not fraud Ali, and a payment is needed to be made to the landlord before departure.
References List
David, K & Gary, S 2009, Business law: the English legal system, Cavendish: New York.
Eisenberg, N & Melvin, A 2002, Business law: Gilbert Law Summaries of Contracts, The Barbra Group: Chicago.
Frank, S 2011, Business and corporate law: Introduction to law and legal system, Cavendish publishers: New York.
Lowe, R & Woodroffe, G 2004, Consumer law and practice, Sweet and Maxwell: London.
Richards, P 2003, Business law: the law of contract, Pearson Longman: UK.
Smith, J 2002, Business and corporate law: the law of the contract, Sweet and Maxwell: London.
Stone, R 2002, International law: the modern law of contract, Cavendish publishing: London.
Taylor, K 2009, Business law: Administrative law and Regulatory practice, Routledge Cavendish: New York.