Essential Elements of Contract Law

Question: Discuss about the Essential Elements of Contract Law. Answer: Richard was asked by his father to leave what he was doing and to come and assist him make the gardens look tidy and that for doing that he will compensate him $200. The work was, work that was previously undertaken by someone else for a higher consideration. Richard has ensured that the garden look neat but the dad does not want to pay him. The issue her is whether an intention to be legally bound existed. Law The law that governs the issues here is Contract law and one of the essential elements of contract law is that there must be an intention to create a legal relationship. In family and social relationship like in Richard and his father there always exists a rebuttable presumption that there is no intention to create a legal relationship in this case and the parties are not bound by the agreement. (Balfou v Balfour, 1919) To rebut such a presumption it has been held that an objective test must be taken to determine if the one could reasonably infer an intention in the circumstances of that case. (Edwardss v Skyways 1964) The landmark case in this part is Wakeling v Ripley (1951) where the defendant in this case asked his sister and brother to stop what they were doing to come and take care of him and he will leave for them the house and the let her and the husband stay without paying rent in his house. The claimant and her husband left all that they were doing and did as her brother instructed. Mr. Ripley in the end did not want to meet the promise. It was held that where someone relies on a certain promise and they to the extent that they suffer a detriment so as to benefit from the promise and the activity being asked for was a serious one such an agreement is enforceable and an intention to create a legal relationship exist in this case. The case in Jones v Padavaton (1969) shows that there must be sufficient evidence to rebut the presumptions, in that case the agreement between a mother and daughter was held not have the intention to be legally bound not only because it was a family agreement but there was also no evidence to rebut the presumptions. This implies that if evidence is given in a family agreement to rebut the presumptions, an intention can be found to be existing. Application Richard relied ion the promise made by his father and he left his school and came to assist his father. The work did not reach the test that has been given in Wakeling v Ripley (1951) to rebut the presumption. Richard did not do a lot for his father that like Wakeling did for his brother Ripley and furthermore, Richard only worked half a day the entire week and that is the home that he gets to after school. From the application of the case above it can also be found that there was no intention to be legally bound because there was no sufficient evidence to rebut the presumptions. It is important to note that the rebuttable presumptions are not absolute law; they can be rebutted if the circumstances of the case show that an intention to be legally bound exists. The burden of proofing such an intention is normally placed on the claimant who has to who it on a balance of probability. Joes has breached a contract where he signed and agreed to the terms that he will not act for any film company during a five year period. Frere Bros are frustrated in this case and the issue is whether they have any legal remedy against Joe. In contract law parties to a contract are bound by the terms they agreed upon and any breach that results from such a contract will entitle the innocent party to remedies. (Benson, (ed) 2001) Damages are awarded for a breach of contract law as part of the common law remedy (Addis v Gramophone, 1909). Damages are awarded to the claimant in law so that they compensated for any economic loss they incurred while performing the contract. The other remedy that is suitable is Specific performance. This where an order is given to compel the defendant to perform the contract as had been agreed in the contractual terms (Nutbrown v Thornton, 1805). The remedy seeks to protect the interest of the innocent party in a contract. In most instances it is granted where the remedy of damages was not adequate in compensating the claimant (Atiyah, 1990). There are cases where the defendant will not want to continue with the contract and it has been held that the court may also not grant an Oder for this remedy where in their view it will cause hardship on the defendant. The claimant in breach of contract case may also apply to the court for the remedy of rescission where the contract will be rescinded. The purpose of this remedy is to put the parties in their pre-contractual position. Frere Bros can seek the remedy of damages because they may have paid Joe some excess amount of money so that he can stick with them only and not contract with any other company. The damages will be in form of economic loss. They can also compel Joe through the Oder of specific performance to fulfill the promise and that will mean that he will have to end the contract with the second company. Conclusion The contract will be ended through the order of rescission if both parties are not willing to continue to perform their obligations in the contract. However, it is important to note that the contract can be rescinded after an award of damages has been made. References Atiyah, P,S, 1990, Essays on Contract, Oxford University Press, New York Benson, P, (ed) 2001, The Theory of Contract Law: New Essays Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Addis v Gramophone [1909] AC 488 Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 Edwards v Skyways [1964] 1 WLR 349 Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 Wakeling v Ripley. (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183utbrown v Thornton (1805) 10 Ves 159