In this case the matter wants the establishment of the fact that whether there was an enforceable contract between Richard and his father. This matter wants to choose that whether the parties to the agreement had the reason of entering into a legal association or not. In this case, an assurance has been given by Richard’s father to his son that he will give $200 per week to him if he would move fields and take care of the assets in an appropriate manner. But before entering into this agreement his father have already paid the Gardner contractor a sum of $200. Richard’s father did not pay the sum to his son because he already paid the required sum to the Gardner, so he did not pay the assured amount to his son. At the same time, the reason for father’s denial was that he thought that his son was the member of his family who has been granted free boarding and lodging by him. This matter therefore, needs aid of the basic elements as it is a crucial case which if not solved then would be penalized.
In order to understand the case certain rules and regulations are essentially needed to be followed. The rule of a contract provides an order to make an observation that whether a contract was present between the parties or not. But in order to establish that a contract exist between the parties certain important elements have to be present. The essential elements include Price paid for a promise; a proposal and approval. On the other hand the contract also needs to oblige for the parties to the agreement that they should have the intention that the agreement would be enforceable by Act. The essential requirement associated with the objective of the parties to the agreement was to develop a legal relationship which have been introduced to produce a irregularity between the matters relating to family and cultural agreement as well as the agreements in which an action by the court was essential (Harland & Lindgren, 1996). The effect of this introduction of this obligation was that all the agreements which were entered between the parties were not enforceable by the courts. For example if two friends have decided to go for a movie in evening, there must be an agreement like an assurance between them which was not enforceable by law. However in these kinds of matters it has been seen very rarely that the requirements of the parties have been abided by law. At the same time, in order to decide that whether the agreement between the parties could be enforced by the courts, also if the parties had an intention of making a legal relationship; then also the act sustain variation among the family, cultural, and business agreements (Fleming, 1996).
Courts have been regarded as the highest authority in order to solve any case and any type of family or societal issue. This case was also resolved by the direction given by the court. Several rules were applied by the court and the conclusion was drawn out keeping in view the benefit of the parties. The court illustrated that even if the societal or the family agreements were entered into between the parties then also it was very complex in nature. At last there was a presumption which was made that the objective of the parties while entering into agreement was not to create a legal relation between themselves though the other parties created a clear aim to the contrary. The detailed principles of this matter were that Mrs. Jones assured to grant her daughter Mrs. Padavatton a stipend of $200 each month if she would leave her job and come back to London from Washington. Mrs. Jones did not require her daughter to stay in Washington that’s why she told her beloved daughter to comeback to London. In the beginning, her daughter did not agree on the offer which her mother made, but after some time the daughter agreed with the proposal of her mother as a result of which she came back to London. Mrs. Jones wanted that her daughter after completing her studies would join as a lawyer in Trinidad. However, the agreement did not run easily as the doctor was under a suspicion that her mother would give US dollars but she targeted to give Trinidad dollars which were half the price of US dollars. As a result of this, her daughter managed to lease a single room and stayed with her son. Thus, her mother wants to purchase a big room in which the doctor may live happily as well as she would lease various rooms. The money which would come as a payment from rent would be used by the physician. After few days, the daughter got married and due to this she was not able to complete her studies. In this circumstance, Mrs. Jones wants get back the ownership of the house. During this time, the case which was previously taken by the court was whether this was a domestic agreement or the party wishes the agreement to be legally enforceable (Merrett & Ville, 2004). The court concluded at the end that the agreement between the parties was family agreement. Thus, the assumption which was present was not the objective of the parties to create a legal relation. In this concern, the court clarified the principle that no prove has been stated by the other parties. Therefore, the matter would be clearer to solve.
In this matter, the agreement was between the father and son thus the assumption which was present was that of a family agreement, which was not the aim of the parties that the agreement may be enforced by law. In this situation, Richards did not assert the value of $200 per week from his father in court.
The case which requires to settle in this matter that it relates to the remedies that may be rewarded to Frere Bros for violation of contract dedicated by Joe.
There have been very few of the cases in accordance with the contract law in which the party to the contract fails to execute its commitment under the agreement which have been imposed on the party by the said agreement, it has also illustrated that very few parties has violated the contract. Where there has been a violation of a contract by a party then the act gives the other party the right to get the satisfactory remedy. The major remedies which have been granted to the honest party when there has been a contravention of a contract include injunction; dangers and the preparation of particular presentation. Contract law has been an important key to solve any type of commercial issue or trade issue.
Normally the remedy would be granted when there has been a contravention of any contract. The law of contract gives the price which may be awarded by the court on the basis of the cost which has been incurred by the other parties by the fault in the agreement. Hence, it could be depicted that the compensatory price has to be given under the common act for the violation of contract. The main cause of giving a remedy to the honest party in case of violation of a contract was that the monetary compensation may be granted to the party as the loss has suffered by another party due to violation of a contract by other party. Therefore, in the matter of contravention of a contract the innocent party has to face the loss (Hovell & Williams, 2003). The jeopardizes in a contract was not given by the court as a penalty to the party for the cause which was not capable to execute the duty imposed on it by such contract. In the similar way, while awarding agreement risks, courts have not permitted the payment ability of the defendant. As a result of this, the price of compensation which was awarded by the courts was based on various points which were present among the change under the contract as well as the cost that requires to be incurred by the other party for the performance of contract. Another remedy that was vacant in the matter of contravention of contract was that of specific performance. Performance was vital as it would define more successful things. There were very few guaranteed cases where the remedy of the specific performance acts essentially. While awarding the remedy of the specific performance, the courts make a rule in accordance with the defendant should have performed his role, concerning in regard to which the defendant has been found to be executing as per the contract. Basically courts award remedy of specific performance in lawful way as per which the particular party should be doing something or was asked for not doing something. It has been seen that the court makes a rule of specific performance to establish a dealing which had been created earlier. The remedy of specific performance may be affirmed as the most successful. In few cases the court has approved this remedy in order to save the possible curiosity of the party in the matter of violation of contract. In each and every matter the performance should be precise and the remedy which would be granted must be of high quality. However, the court grants the remedy for specific performance. Although it was so much considerable that the court permit if sufficient liberation would be given to the innocent party if the remedy of repayment was granted. On the other hand, the court will reject to proposal of a remedy of exact award to be given. It would be held in the cases where the contract did not expressly have described the terms and conditions of the agreement. Also the remedy of the specific performance will not be offered by the courts if the award for such remedy will come out in odd hardships. For example, such a situation may be granted in the exact matter where an exclusive subject issue was associated with the contract (Cooter & Ulen, 1988).
Order of the court plays a significant role in settling any type of issue. For the purpose of offering release in some matters, the court can pick the remedy of exact performance. A command can also be given by the courts to contract with the specific case where a violation of agreement has been done. To covenant with a violation of a contract, the command may be explained as an additional point which has been created by the court. In this case, the significant party in the contract could be controlled as performing an act. Similarly, an instruction of injunction may needs to oblige a party to cure to have a specific position in future. In this way in order to deal with other cases, there were few types of intentions which the court can grant. For example, this was obtainable by the court, as it was an obligatory command for regulating an interlocutory restriction. The court gives a significant command for the purpose of keeping the issue of contract when the lawful action was going on between the parties. At the same time, the order given to the conceding mandating order needs to oblige a party to accomplish something as per the requirement of the contract. In the present case, the remedy of authority would be most proper that would cure a person from playing in the movie of any other party. The order of the court was very important to obey. Each and every person should follow the regulation which has been approved by the court.
Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. (1988). Law and economics.
Carter, J. W., Harland, D. J., & Lindgren, K. E. (1996). Contract law in Australia. Michie.
Balotti, R. F., & Finkelstein, J. A. (2008). Delaware Law of Corporations and Business Organizations: Statutory Deskbook 2009 (Vol. 4). Aspen Publishers Online.
Fleming, G., Merrett, D., & Ville, S. (2004). The big end of town: Big business and corporate leadership in twentieth-century Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Beale, H. (ed) 2002, Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law HartPublishing, Oxford
Benson, P. (ed)2001,The Theory of Contract Law: New Essays Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C., & Pinto, D. (2011).Australian Taxation Law Select: legislation and commentary. CCH Australia.
Lefler, R. (2001). Comparision of Comparision: Use of Foreign Case Law as Persuasive Authority by the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the High Court of Australia, A. S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ,11, 165.
Charlesworth, H., Chiam, M., Hovell, D., & Williams, G. (2003). Deep anxieties: Australia and the international legal order. Sydney L. Rev., 25, 423.