Site Loader
Get a Quote

Introduction to Commercial LawGranted by American Psychological Association Guidelines
Tupou Tertiary Institute
Soakai Vea.

Author Note
Soakai Vea, Department of Business, Tupou Tertiary Institute.

This research was kindly supported or funded by Rev. Saimone Fakahua. Correspondence according to this article should be addressed to Soakai Vea, Department of Business, Tupou Tertiary Institution, Fasi moe Afi, Tongatapu.

Contact: [email protected]

Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Introduction to Commercial Law PAGEREF _Toc527147602 h 4Formative elements PAGEREF _Toc527147603 h 4Vitiating Elements & Discharged of Contract PAGEREF _Toc527147604 h 7Law of Agency. PAGEREF _Toc527147605 h 11References PAGEREF _Toc527147606 h 14
Introduction to Commercial LawThis article will clarify facets of Commercial Law in binding agreement system with Formative Elements of a Contract, Vitiating Elements, Discharged of Contract and Law of Agency. I would examine diverse cases relating to Contracts or binding agreement between two parties with elements to create a contract, how to vitiates or discharged a contract and lastly to Law of Agency.

Formative elements
a)Can Cory enforce the contract?
-No, contracts are legally binding agreements as Cory and Jane did not have that concerning of intention to create a legal relation and offer and acceptance followed by consideration (price of a promise) They raise obligations on parties to the contract, for as the changes in advertisement. If these obligations are not fulfilled, the parties may take legal action to enforce them.

b)Would it matter if the email was sent at 6pm 3 December?
-No, because at the time the stock of Sony LED Television runs out, and somehow Jane just getting finishing with the newspaper agency about the change in the advertisement before she checks her emails linking to postal rule for acceptance applies regardless of whether the letter arrives on time in regardless of fault.

c)Another customer, Steve, has decided after seeing the advertisement in the newspaper on 3 December, decided to go into the shop on 4 December to purchase the television. However, he did not see the website nor the 4 December newspaper advertisement. Can Steve enforce a contract?
-No, according to the case the vast majority of contracts are simple contracts. There are number of elements required to create each valid simple contract. How these are expressed and classified consists of six elements with Intention to Create Legal Relations, Offer and Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Genuine consent, and Legality concerning about lawfulness of object. Steve got no intention to Create Legal Relations, there’s been no offer and acceptance and any consideration concerning of a promise price but instead Steve considered that he will go into the shop on 4th of December and purchase the television somehow defines as the contract is defective.
Part B
At this point, what should Marie do?
Don’t bank the cheque. As soon as possible, write to the debtor saying: the offer of full and final settlement is rejected. The cheque is accepted in part payment and will be presented for payment after a specified date. This should give the debtor time to stop the cheque or ask for its return before you accept the payment.

Explain the consequences if she had banked the cheque and the amount was disputed.

The consequences of an illegal contract are that the contract is void, and of no effect. No rights and obligations can be created in the contract and no party to the contract is entitled to any property under it. Does the parties had entered into a binding agreement of accord and satisfaction concerning about the law it does not allow for an agreement to be formed by one party stipulating to the other that specified conduct (other than express assent) will amount to acceptance of the first party’s offer. The banking of the cheque cannot, without more, mean that an agreement has been formed between a creditor and a debtor, even if the debtor sends the cheque on the express basis that it is only to be banked if the offer is accepted.
What if the amount was not disputed?
If the conditional payment is an offer to settle, the creditors words and actions might make an informal but binding agreement to settle its claim for the amount paid, giving up its right to claim the balance.

Part C
What would the outcome be for Dom and Paul along with the other staff that worked?
The outcome is that every person working under Shed 5 will have its own wages or paycheck according to the legally binding agreement which it requires terms and condition and concerning about Paul and Dom, Simon the boss is motivating Paul and Dom to work hard not having a legally document to sign between parties in order for Paul and Dom to sue Simon for breach of contract however knowingly that they will be short staffed, the other chefs maybe requested for a purpose to leave depending on individual function and incidents which this is known by Simon the boss informs Paul and Dom that they will be short staffed somehow relates to bare promise.

Would it have made a difference if it were either Paul or Dom that was not working?
No, according to the case Paul and Dom are two top chefs at Shed 5 in Wellington somehow they are employees of Shed 5, as long as they are an employee to Shed 5, each parties have legally binding agreement in terms and conditions and somehow they will do as follow by sharing wages according to the contract.

What if the staff shortage was the waiting (waiters and waitresses) staff?
It does not have an impact and it does not matter because Paul and Dom did not get the share of wages that they were promised to but somehow if that’s Paul and Dom the top two chefs in Shed 5 and wonder why would it be different to other employees in Shed 5.

Vitiating Elements & Discharged of Contract1Part A
a) Andrew, a beginner collector, sees Myles’ advertisement in the for Sale column of the Dominion Post and after he has carried out a thorough inspection of the collection, Myles asks him: What do you think its worth? To which Andrew’s reply is: It’s so rare I don’t really know but I very much doubt that you would get any more than $50,000 but what do I know? I have only heard about these cards never seen them myself.
-According to this situation Andrew and Myles does not have any intention to create a legally binding agreement because what Andrew’s intention is about the card with hardly and rarely to get this item. Which the Law of Contract contains offer and acceptance leading to terms and condition which the situation is that Myles and Andrew have talked and agreed on some certain points. Consideration they must have full Capacity to take this as a Contract concerning about the legally of object. Myles and Andrew on certain points in terms of their performance Myles can discharged by that performance.

b) Craig, an expert collector, sees Myles’ advertisement in the for Sale column of the Dominion Post and after he has carried out a thorough inspection of the collection, Myles asks him: What do you think its worth? To which Craig’s reply is: It’s so rare I don’t really know, I shall offer you $30,000 cash today. Myles accepts this and did not know that Craig was a collector who already knows the value of these cards. He later finds out Craig has resold them for $110,000 4 weeks later.
– According to this case, Craig is an expert collector and had breach of duty on dishonesty about the exact value and minimum cost of the card as stated by Contractual Mistake Act 1977, which it defines mistake a law or a fact. Craig knows the original cost of the card but he intent to create a contract with Myles have contact. This kind of mistake is considered as Unilateral Mistake which Myles bind an agreement with Craig but however, Craig knows that what he is doing is illegal according to the price or the original cost of the cards value. Which the outcome is obvious that the offer is a mistake acceptance just maybe because of Myles elderly age but due to this unmoral behavior Myles can discharge the Contract that he had sign with Craig.
c) Georgia, Myles’ granddaughter aged 12, has shown an interest in buying the cards because she likes the way they look and wants to keep them in the family. She offers her grandfather $150 from her piggy bank. He accepts but she doesn’t pay him.
-According to this situation Myles and the granddaughter had agreements as Myles accept this. However, Myles still hold the legal position for the goods in facts he could return his cards in accordance to Georgia’s performance and Myles could discharged by returning his own goods before Georgia gain benefits from the cards selling them a remedy of ratification which it pints out to giving of subsequent authority, with a principal adopting an act which was originally unauthorized but maybe by implications which it usually express concerning there is no legally binding agreement to express this.

d) Graeme, Myles’ son, has been spending a lot of time looking after his father, as he has been getting older and frailer. Graeme has taken on duties with his wife, looking after his father, driving him, feeding him, cleaning up around the house etc. Graeme has secretly admired the collection of his cards for many years and wants to buy them for very cheap. He feels he is owed them because he has looked after his father for so many years now. Graeme says to his father, I will give you $20,000 because I have looked after you all these years and if you refuse this price, my wife and I shall stop looking after you.
-According to Graeme a misrepresentation occurs in fact that he founds that the card/all cards should be offered at a lower cost for him in terms of their performance and task of taking good care for Myles in fact that’s about 90 years of age. This cannot be discharged as there is no legal position of Graeme with respect that he is the heir but in terms that the legally binding agreement is on Graeme’s father Myles hand whether he provides lawful documents concerning about the transferring of his belongings to his son which Graeme misrepresentation is that threatening Myles to owed him all the cards in terms of taking care of him through, driving him, feeding him, cleaning up around the house which Myles have the right to discharge the contract between him and Graeme the son by doing legally binding agreement or avoid the contract.

Part B
Explain why, in the case of Hadley v Baxendale, the court awarded the plaintiff nominal damages but was not prepared to award him substantial damages.
Because a substantial damages brings about actual economic loss for which compensation in a substantial amount is awarded as distinguished from nominal damages only to vindicate a legal right. According to Hadley v Baxendale, either person would not presume that the absence of the shaft would have stopped the mill. For instance, there may have been a spare shaft. The carrier had not been told of the stoppage situation. The claim could have been successful of that loss of profit for stoppage should have been realized by the carrier, if he had been told the consequences of delay.

Part C
Is Paul entitled to cancel his contract with Megan? How does the Contractual Remedies Act help him? Give reasons for your answer.
Yes, the statutory remedy of cancellation was introduced by the Contractual Remedies Act 1979. The Act provides a Code governing a party’s right to end a contract in the event of misrepresentation, repudiation or breach, and replaces the old case law rules. Meghan firstly makes mistakes about the company’s account on 2013 knowingly that it is not ready but still insist to inform Paul that it does comes up to the same outcome and result of 2012 company’s profit. Cancellation at a party’s choice concerning of the other parties is going to commit a breach of contract somehow known as Anticipatory breach intentionally informed by his Accountant. As Meghan misrepresentation concerning about the company’s profit which undoubtedly later know recognize that he would not earn profits from it add-ons the premises from Wellington City Council would cost him close to $50,000 to upgrade them. So Paul could discharge the contract in fact Cancellation, the other party is obviously going to commit a breach of contract knowingly as Anticipatory breach.

Assuming the contract was to go ahead, 2 days before the transfer of ownership to Paul, a robbery occurs at night and most of the stock is stolen and it is not insured. What can Paul do?
According to discharged by impossibility the court has evolved a doctrine which states that, when legal frustration happens, the contract is discharged. So Paul could do cancellation of contract due to breach of negligence by the Company but not the least the stock stolen is not insured.

Law of Agency.
Explain whether Zoe had to pay for the first and/or second delivery. Give reasons for your answer.
Yes, Zoe had to pay for both first and second delivery according to Agent Law, Mark is considered as Special agents as he is considered to purchase only fabric into the business but the thing is becoming an agent is to held responsible on behalf of someone with high authority but to become an agent you have to be trustworthy and honesty in which he had breach of action in terms of her agent Mark’s action. Zoe appointed Mark as her agent to purchase high quality fabric so in terms of Zoe and Mark acting on her behalf to purchase the fabric from Italy, she is responsible for the purchasing according to her writing that Mark will act on her behalf and accountability.

State ONE duty of an agent Mark has breached AND ONE remedy Zoe would have against Mark for this breach.
DUTY: Put Principals interest first ahead of agent’s interest.

REMEDY: Action in Tort.

Explain why Mark is not allowed to give his tasks to Katy.
Because Zoe appointed Mark as her agent to purchase goods (Fabrics) only. Unauthorized authority to pass a task to a particular person respectively according Mark delegating his task to Katy. Breach of Warranty of Authority examines how Mark knows how keen Katy wants to work for Zoe base on that it is not based on breach of warranty of authority but something called Fraud with the tort action of deceit.

Assuming the deliveries were clarified and finalized, when is Mark entitled to ask for his commission?
The agent is entitled to ask for his commission under the terms of the contract, express and implied. In the case of commissions, whether payment has in fact been earned is sometimes disputed. It depends on the exact wording of the contract, and whether the agent’s actions satisfied the wording.

e) What can Zoe do at this point?
Zoe can sue Mark for Acting in the principal’s interests which concern that the gent must not let his conflicts with the obligations owed to the principal leading in particular, the agent must not personally compete with the agent which Mark breach of duty acting on behalf of Zoe and purchase his interest and somehow providing himself his own goods unauthorized authority which is somehow known as fraud intentionally ordering the fabric for his individual good not mistakenly.

ReferencesLast Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From – To.

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.

Post Author: admin