Hello, I'm Matthew Hickling. Andi in this short video will be looking at the content of Section three off the Unit 30 Study Book published by the National Association of Paralegals. Units 30 and 31 are the two level three mandatory units. Unit 30. Our unit here is entitled on Introduction to Law for Paralegals, but it's worth five credits. Unit 30 has five sections and in this video will be covering Section three, which is entitled The General Principles of Contract Law. And you'll see in Section three that there's lots of quite old cases, but don't be put off by the age off them. They all still apply today, even in the Internet age, and I would suggest that rather than looking at the principles and trying to learn them first of all, you read the case summaries and understand the principles and then have a look at the legal terminology that is applied to those principles. Because the principles are all derived from the facts of a case and the way that the courts ruled on on the facts on therefore the judgments sort of come on. The principals come from the facts off each case the principles will give you a little bit off new terminology to get to grips with. But as I've said before, all off those principles and all of the terminology logically follows all of the facts of the case is on the judgments, and so that is the right starting point. So let's have start having a look at Section three, then off three Unit 30 manual. The section is entitled The General Principles of Contract Law, and it begins by defining a contract on it. It says that it's a legally enforceable agreement, and so the words Contract on agreement are used to co Terminus Lee on a legal agreement illegal by legally binding contract. It means the same thing, and you're given a few examples of what might not be a legally binding contract on. Because, of course, it's all the other washing up if you clean my shoes while it's not going to be legally binding. But why? One of the reasons for that, and that's what we'll be looking at in a little bit closer detail. The section goes on to classified contracts, a specialty contracts on simple contracts. Specialty contracts are simply contracts that are required to be executed in a particular way. On, therefore, need to be under by deed or we need to be signed by somebody. And you can think off contracts for the sale of interest in land and also things like wills on dull. And these are specialty contracts things that for which there are particular requirements for for contracts to be a valid one and there have been simple contracts, and these comprise the majority of contracts they don't need to be in writing. They may be Orel and Verbal on. It's a question of whether or not thes contracts are going to be enforceable by the courts, and you'll see them. That section refers to a number of categories of valid contract, which is one that is going to be enforceable on unenforceable contract, which the contract that's been entered into. But for some reason, the parties one either party, is not able to enforce a voidable contract, which means that once we've entered into the contract, one of the parties concerned actually, I now wish to Jenison that and I don't want the contract anymore. Avoid contract, which is a contradiction in terms because it's one that the law says, Actually, that never existed. I know that you did that, and you may have agreed that. But as far as we're concerned in law, it never existed. And then there is an executed contract, which is one that's being performed andan executive contract, which is one that is only being performed by one person. So 11 side, if you like of the contract, has done their obligation. But the other side hasn't yet, and these are just terminology that actually applies to fairly logical situations in the in an agreement or a contract. The next part of this section actually refers to the requirements of a valid contract on these are for learning. They are offer on intention to create legal obligations, capacity, consideration, public policy, special formalities and consensus at IDM, which means that must be a genuine agreement. Don't worry about learning than just yet, because it's better to have a read off the section and then come back to them and say right, Okay, now I understand what they all are. I can learn them, but we got to say each one in Turn on, have a look at what it means first of all, let's have a look at offer on acceptance. There needs to be an identifiable offer on somebody who accepted an offer. Must be definite. So I might say to you, Would you like to buy my car? And you'll say Yes, All right, well, we haven't actually made a proper offer yet because we don't know what the prices We don't know when you're going to buy it, how you're going to pay and all this sort of thing so that offers must be definite on that. There's a reference in thes section to a case off the very famous case of the carbolic Smoke Ball company and Mrs Carlisle on. This is an offer made to the general public, and you might think this is just a case for some historic interest. But it's not at all in the Internet age. We do have people making offers to the general public, and therefore the principles that were in existence all those years ago continue to apply. In that particular case, the carbolic smoke ball company thought that it had a remedy for slow, which was basically to take a ball and put some put some substance in it, which was, in fact a derivative of penal on, then have a to which you then had to put up your nose on as the ball produced smoke on the smoke went up your nose. Your nose would run on. The theory was that running your by making your nose run, then it would take all of the all of the flu out of your body on interesting concept. Of course, Mrs Carlo basically bought one of these smoke balls and used it for three months and then contracted flu. And she said, When your your your smoke war doesn't work on DSO, I want the normally there wouldn't be any sort of a problem with that. You just say, Well, it doesn't work and I took some tablets, so I took that medication. It didn't work, but the carbolic Smoke Ball company had advertised £100 reward for anyone who contracted influenza after using its scarf. Its smoke born its product. And so Mrs Carla said, Well, I'll have my 100 pan set, please. The carbolic smoke ball company then decided that it was all oh, every reason under the sun why it wouldn't pay saying what we can't guarantee that you genuinely did use it. What we meant is you have to come to our premises so that we can actually see you using it. And you didn't do that. Oh, on By the way, the advertised advert advertising reward was just a mere puff. This was just advertising perfect. We didn't really mean it on the court. Said, Well, actually know what you did in your advertisement. As you said, we have deposited £1000 to pay all of the people who might actually contract flu because we don't think we'll need to pay and therefore looking at the thing, as the whole of the courts have said, actually, that this is actually going to cost you £100. We don't know of anybody else, of course, who who might have claimed against the carbolic smoke ball company but reading the case? There might have been a few others, and that, of course, would be subject to the evidence of having used it. There's then a reference to communication often offer. Clearly, you need to know about my offer if you're going to accept it on. There's an example given of somebody who finds a lost cat and returns it to the owner only to go down to the newsagent window and find that there's an advertisement. They're offering a reward and then wants to go back and claim the reward on the law of contract. Said Well, actually, no. You needed to know about the offer before actually doing what you did in order to get the other person Teoh, perform their side off the agreement. Subheading in the section is entitled Invitation to Treat On. Do we mentioned this before? Briefly and section one because it actually it concerns advertising goats. If you display something in a shop window advertising it for sale for £10. Andi, I come in and say We gets up by that for £10. Is this me? Accepting your offer to sell for £10 when the answer is Will? Probably not. Actually, what you're doing is you're putting a product and your advertising it, and you're saying this is a price that I would consider accepting for it, and therefore, when I come along and offer to buy it, it is me making the offer, which you then need to accept. And there's an interesting cases on this, all of which are entirely relevant for people advertising, for example, on eBay on things like this, there's a reference also to dealing with machines we actually deal with the computer. I supplies a lot more for goods and services on the law at the moment, says it is the the individual entity, whether it be a company or a person that actually is responsible for creating the machine of the machinery that provides the service and think of a vending machine. You go along the machine and you you put your 50 p in, and it doesn't give you your can of drink or whatever it is on by the law of contract comes from those mechanical devices up to the present day applies equally to electron ICS. There's then a section on termination often offer. In other words, if I offer to buy something from you or do something for you, which you will pay, then how when, at what point does that offer than terminate one of one way in which, of course, is this refused to accept my offer on then, of course, we have the existence off a contract on the offer comes to an end because the contract is now in existence on offer can also be revoked before it is accepted. So I can offer to buy your car for £500 you can say, Well, all right. And we have a think about it. I can come along to you at any time then and say, Well, actually, no. I withdraw my offer on that. Of course, I didn't bring my offer to an end. Terminate my offer before you have accepted it. There's also a lapse of time. What will be a reasonable time, of course, comes from your given a sample judgment there. In other words, I could make an offer. I could make an offer to buy your car, gives out, think about it, and then maybe six weeks later, you come back and say Yes. Okay, you can buy my kind of hold on a minute. That was then. And so at what point doesn't offer Terminate and there's some guidance in the lower is to say that when an offer bite terminate, there's also a reference to failure of a condition so I might actually make an offer to do something that provided that that a condition is applied. So I could say, for example, I'll offer to buy your car for 1000 bands, provided you give me an answer by five oclock this evening on the once five atop this evening passes. But then the offer is terminated. There's an interesting cases on the death of either party, not a clear answer to any of these. Because, of course, if I enter into a contract Onda, I agreed to pay you for some services and you provide those services and then I die. It's unlikely that you would be able to claim against my state and so the But there are other occasions where the death of either party will result in on offer a terminating, and so do please have a look at the if either the person making the otter or the person to whom the offer is made dies. What the effect of that might bay there's in a reference to making a counter offer on this is essentially starting up the process for a new contract by making a new offer. So I you offer your car for 7.5 £1000 I say, Well, I give you £5000 you then say, Well, I'll take 6.5. This is a process of negotiation and we've reached the stage at which you have now made me an offer on I am at limited now to accept that offer from you to sell me your car for 6.5 £1000. But if we were still at that stage off you having made what we call a counter offer, there's then a section on acceptance on this is the extent to which somebody agrees the terms off on offer and whether or not on offer can be accepted in part. For example, on the rules generally say that if I'm going to accept your offer, the offer that needs to be accepted in full on, therefore not conditionally and it needs to be certain, it is a sensible reason for this. If a court is going to enforce it, the court needs to actually be able to say what waas this offer on what Waas actually accepted on. If there is doubt about that, then it makes it difficult to enforce. Acceptance must be communicated on. You've got some notes on there saying it must be communicated by someone in authority. Silence cannot constitute acceptance. And so that must be. There must be some sort of communication off the acceptance. And again, there's a reference to accepting. It's subject to contract, which is which is not a full acceptance on the timing, often acceptance as well. And this is interesting section in here that the talks about the use of telegrams and telex is which I appreciate are are sort of archaic forms of communication. But what you need to do is think. All right, what if we accept by email? Let let's say that I email you an offer, for example. Then I realized that my offer is actually no, I've sold it to somebody else. Let's say, for example, and so I need to ring you up and say that the offer is now withdrawn. Things like this happen on the law has to deal with them because you might actually accept my offer by email, either knowing or not knowing that I already agreed to start somebody else, and the law has to look at all these things and say, Well, are we prepared to enforce this contract or not, and that's the key to it. Really? Ask yourself, in what way would it caught be able to enforce this on? If you don't think that a court could, then it's likely that the court is going to say, Well, I'm sorry, but something hasn't happened that needed to happen. In order for this contract to be a legally binding contract, there needs to be then an intention to create legal relationships. Onda domestic and social agreement Since I've already mentioned, generally speaking might not, although there are exceptions. And so there's some rather lovely cases where, for example, somebody have entered into a competition on it was agreed between, Let's say, about three people and they said, Well, would take it in turn, shall wait t by the lottery ticket this weekend and one buys a lottery ticket wins and then says, Well, actually, I'm sorry, but it wasn't in writing. There was no formal contract. I'm going to keep the money, thank you very much. It looks as though it was a fairly casual domestic contract, but the courts would say, Well, actually, no, I think that's going to be enforceable and so Do you have a look at those cases? Because they are quite interesting and you'll see that commercial and business agreements Your starting point is not is not necessarily the case that your starting point is. If it is a business agreement or commercial, then there is going to be an intention to create legal relationships. The capacity to contract a person must have capacity to contract. And there there are a few examples given you which or off people that may not have the capacity contract. The 1st 1 is minors, anybody under 18 who is not on the face of it capable of contracting. So you have to be 18 for example, to be a shareholder in a company toe and into that agreement. That contract, and so a starting point for someone under 18 is they're not actually a capable off entering into a contract. But there's a couple of exceptions, so contracts for necessaries and contracts for the miners benefit may be enforceable in law. And so again, ask yourself if this was somebody under 18 have entered into a contract, then would the court be inclined or able to actually enforce it? And there's a number of cases to have a read off. We're in which you will see that the courts actually rejected some claims but also upheld others on. There is logic to all of that. Um, there's also examples off Avoid contracts in other words, contracts which either by statute or by common law, mostly by statute. You see, there's the Infants Relief Act, which is now being replaced by the Miners Contracts act, where contracts for the repayment of money lent or to be lent, and for good supply other than what is referred to US necessaries, avoid contracts and say that the I suppose the warning is, If you're going to contract with somebody, you need to make sure that they are indeed 18 or over. Otherwise, there is a clear risk, and so do you have a read off those judgments and those examples there, quite a few of them on. You'll see that by and large, they all have a sensible and logical conclusion. Another, a question mark over people's capacity to enter into a legally binding contract is mental incapacity on these contracts are avoidable. They're not necessary. Avoid from the beginning. They are they may be avoided. That's what that's what avoidable means. I have entered into a contract, but I can actually avoid it on. Therefore, somebody who lacks the capacity to contract may be able Teoh get out of it, if you like. With the court saying What? Actually, we're not actually going Thio going to require the person to remain in that contract, and it can happen when people enter into contracts and then a relative or friend comes along as one really, really sorry. You may have come along and offered to repair my my great answer roof for £10,000. But I'm sorry she is not somebody who actually had the capacity contract. And there may be other reasons, such as duress and commercial, which will consider separately in a moment. But if someone lacks the mental capacity to contract, then the court is not going to do anything other than to allow them to say, Actually, no, I want to pull out of this. There's in a section on consideration. You'll remember. These are the headings that we looked at. First of all, on consideration simply means that there must be something passing between the people. Assess the simplest example is I agree to buy your car and I'm going to give you money that my consideration to you is me giving you money. Your consideration to me is you giving me the car now There are some rules there. Six general rules relating to consideration. Firstly, must be riel. It doesn't need to be adequate. I mean, your car might only be worth 100 quid. I am still at liberty to offer you £5000 for it. So it must be really need not to be adequate. It must be legal on it must move between promise or and promising. That's the two people who are entering into agreement, each making a promise to the other. It must be capable of performance. And it must not be what we call past consideration. So let's have a look at each of those Six general rules in turn, briefly consideration. That must be riel on. So it's not actually a something that would have happened anyway. There's an interesting case on this Collins God, Freud in 18 31 where someone was subpoenaed to give evidence in in a legal action on that, it wasn't possible for that person to enforce payment of a sum of money promised to him for attending court because he was just carrying out his public duty and say, Someone had said Yes, I would give you a sum of money, but you're actually required to do it anyway and say I can't force you to pay me money for something that I was required to do anyway. And there are other examples. Glass Brooks Brothers in Global County Council, where the the police came to a police of a potential miners strike on the Colleary, said that it would pay for the officers to come on, then backdate of it, saying, Well, you were required to do it anyway. It was just your job, your duty to come. Police thes situation on the course that will actually know you have actually caused the police to G O doom or than they otherwise might have done. And therefore there waas consideration here and there are other situations where then may or may not be consideration passing from one to another. And that's where there's an existing contract or duty which may or may not result as you'll see from the judgments that in a decision to uphold the existence of a legally binding contract. You'll then see that there are some references to panels, case and something called the doctrine off Equitable promissory estoppel. This is a really may full, but actually it's really quite straightforward. Let's say that I'm renting a room from you of £400 a week on, but that is our agreement. It remains our agreement. But I then lose my job and I say to you, Look, the benefits that I'm on our disabling me from being able to pay you £100 a week now either I'm going to be in breach of my contract to you, which is to have the room for rent, if indeed its for a period of time. But you are right Liberty, of course, to say we'll hold him. And how how much can you afford them while you're right to work on and, um, Onda, let's just informally amended the contract. We don't enter into a new rental agreement, but let's just you pay me £30 a week until you get a job on. I saw that. That's super, Thank you very much. Now it might be that I haven't really lost my job. I just told you that it might be that I carry on paying you £30 a week for three months. And then you discover that actually, after two weeks, I did get a new job and things like this. And so if you have a look at these cases, you will see that that it is possible for someone to enter into a promise that stops them from enforcing the contract while a person freaks out. But if they have agreed or problem, made a promise not to enforce it. So in our example, if I pay you £30 a week while I haven't got a job and then I get a job, you can't come back to me and say, Well, now we'll have the balance of £70 a week, which, while you didn't have a job because I would say, Well, no, you promised not to enforce that while I didn't have a job. And so all of this a section and needs Teoh. It has a logic to it. So have a read off. The principles had read of the cases on Don't be put off by the terminology, you'll see that the conception goes on to say that consideration need not be adequate. I've mentioned that already and consideration must be legal on DSO. The court is not going to enforce on illegal contract and say, If you come and say yes, our clean your windows, I'll either do them for 30 quid. If indeed I need to give you a receipt and it needs to be on the books all recognizable 20 quid because I'm not going to declare my income to revenue. And I say Yes, OK, do them 20 quid, not pay you cash then that is not going to be a a consideration that is going to be enforced by the courts because we both, of course, agreed that we were going to act illegally when we were doing it. You'll see. It also refers to consideration of moving between the promise or on the promise E. On. That really just means that 1/3 party eyes not able to sue on a contract, say, if I agree something with you and you do your bit on, I don't do mine, it's for you to actually sue me in the contract, not for somebody else to come along and say, Well, I want the benefit of that contract, please. So it's all very logical. All these principles arise from logical situations. Consideration must be capable of performance. You'll see that a section e. And then it goes on to say that consideration must not be in the past. Onda neat example is given that if I come along on day out of the kindness of my heart I paint your garage door on, then you say all you've done a really good job. I'll pay you 50 quid for doing that. What I have done has already being done on. Therefore, this is not going to be an enforceable contract because we don't have consideration passing in the contract. It's already being done. There's a reasonably sized section on the illegal contracts, also referring to sexual immorality as well as conspiring to defraud the revenue on the these Go on today. Arguably, I suppose that is quite deferral, re going on for quite some years on what we call nondisclosure agreements about things that have allegedly happened at work and people accepting money to keep schtum under what we call confidentiality towards isn't things like that. And so these principles are all applicable today, even as they were in the 19th century and sometimes before. If a contract has been entered into illegally, that there are certain consequences on these are illustrated in the context off judgments as to whether or not even though they're unenforceable, what would the effect of the illegality be? Because somebody might have actually acted to the detriment in it, not even realizing sometimes that it waas on illegal contracts. So do you have a read off those judgments because they would give you an idea as to again what the courts might or might not do in a particular situation? Contracts may also be void for public policy reasons. And so a contract taking away the right for off the courts, for example, to legitimately having a have a look at what you have done. There's other contracts which are in irrigation off marriage, eso a total restraint of marriage. I would give you £100 a year provided that you don't marry contracts in restraint of trade. They are in existence today, so it might be that that you employ me, but you tell me that while I'm employed by you, I'm not allowed to use any off your data for any other reason. And I'm thinking, well, part of the reason I'm coming working for you so I can learn and pick up these things. Surely I can actually take. I can use them for other reasons. And you might say, Well, while you're working for us, you don't work for anybody else in the evenings or weekends, for example, and things like this, which are in restraint. And there also are covenants after I leave you. And so maybe that in a contract of employment, I have agreed that after leaving you, I will not use any of the skills that I have acquired for six months or whatever afterwards. And these have to be reasonable both us to escape on as to time as well. And you'll see that there are some restraints that can be accepted on some restraints. The law says. Actually, no, that's too much. You then have a section on consensus at IDM. Just a little Latin expression for you on all this means is there must be there must be a legitimate understanding between both of us as to what we are contracting. A bite on that I'm I'm free to do it and there are there are fooled. A category is given in the section as to where they may not be consensus at idea, more true consent to the contract. And they are duress, undue influence, mistake and misrepresentation. So let's deal with those four in turn us. If I pressurize you into entering into a contract, hold a gun to your head or whatever and say you ever signed that or it'll be the worst for you then Clearly, the court is not going to enforce that contract. It might be that you want to perform it anyway, but the court is not going to say that you have to. There's also then undue influence, which comes up recently, often in the context of wills. The historic law on this is between parent and child is that the law presumes that there is some influence available to apparent over a child. But as a parent gets old and infirm, then sometimes that the reverse can apply Onda the child can have some influence over the parent. You also then got mistake, which means that if we are mistaken as to what you're what What we are contracting over, then equally, the court is not going to give effect to it. So I might say Well, by your car for £5000 on, do you say? Well, yes, OK, I take it on. Then I say, Okay, well, I'll pick up the jag in the morning. Usually. Hang on a minute, not the Jenna get. Was the Toyota over selling it? And that would be a mistake. And it may be that we are that I'm mistaken and that you're not or your mistaken and I am on. There are various examples of ways in which we can either make a mistake together about something, or I can make a mistake. Or you could make a mistake. And there's a few Latin expressions thrown in for good will. But don't be put off by those. Have a read off the text of it and have a look at the descriptions before you start getting worried about bits of Latin here, and they're all it is is just a little expressions to describe situations which are logical and sensible. There is then a section on and misrepresentation on this is a statement that is made on. It's a statement of fact that is made to induce somebody to enter into a contract. On it is a false statement. Therefore, it is a statement that that actually is wrong. So you could say, for example, my my car has never been involved in an accident when in actual fact it has, and you might know that it has, in which case, that would be a deliberate on your part. Or, you might say, Well, I've only ended for six months. It hasn't been involved in an accident on Guy could take that as meaning. It's never been involved in an accident. You might just say, Well, actually, all I meant was, it's not been involved in an accident while I've had it. And so there are different ways in which misrepresentations can be made that actually induced a person to enter into a contract on if you have misrepresented by the situation and I vented into a contract which is effectively mistakenly because they're misrepresentation of fact of being made. And then there are certain remedies available, the most common of which is that the contract can then be set aside. You then have a section on types of contract terms on that. These are commonly misrepresented, so a contract will have a Siri's off terms on. But this is about thes terms will apply to the agreement on the terms are are ancillary, if you like to the main agreement. So I agree to buy your car for £5000 you say that's okay. Once the money has been cleared, our drop it round to you on Monday morning on, then of course, things can go wrong in the meantime, but, uh, you delivering it to me on Monday morning is a term of the contract, whereas my payment was actually the consideration. And so there are extra bits and pieces to a contract that our terms of the contract now these terms can either be very important. Terms on important terms if they are breached, will, in fact, result in one party being able to say No, I'm not. I'm not continuing with this contract anymore, or they may be minor one. So, for example, you might actually not deliver your car on Monday morning. It might be hard pressed mid day, for example, and I say, Well, thank you very much. You said you'd come around this morning, but clearly it's not essential it's not. It's not something that I'm going to certainly be able to say. Well, in that case, I reject the contract and I want my money back. Terms of contracts three important ones are called conditions, and the less important ones are called warranties and breach off. A condition is serious, and breach of a warranty is not. It can be confusing because lots of advertisements, a terms and conditions apply. And as lawyers, we just went a little bit and think no terms are terms in terms could be either conditions or warranties. It's not always clear, of course, whether a term is a condition or a warranty, and sometimes you have to look at what happened and what the people did about it. So you bring my car, but maybe at four o'clock in the afternoon on Monday instead of Monday morning, and I say all your a bit later on you clearly you can see that I'm accepting the car and therefore you can see just looking at what we did about it. that it was a warranty and not a condition. So have a look at days because there are situations where we can agree in advance that something is going to be really important in the contract. Be a condition or it's something that actually we have. We didn't really think about beforehand and we had to look afterwards to see what we what we did about it. Terms of the contract can be expressed or implied in all that means this is is we can agree them expressly say we can have them written down or weaken. We can articulate them in a way that is certain. In which case, when we entered into the contract, we actually expressly agreed them or terms could be implied. In other words, what this means is, if we didn't actually agree it, what does the law say about what we meant or what the effect would be? And so implied terms can be implied by custom by the court. Onda also by law s oh yes, the common law could give intention to the parties give effect to the intention of the parties. But we also have laws such as the supply of Goods and Services Act that say, Actually, if you don't agree these particular things, then then that the law says that this will apply. So if, for example, you said, Well, I dropped my car ran to you Once the payment is cleared, the law would say, in the absence of any agreement specifically to the country, we would have impliedly agreed that you will deliver it within a reasonable time on its things like this, that the law says If you don't actually expressly agree them, we will imply terms into the contract and it can be any type of contract, including employment contracts. You then got a section on. How can a contract be discharged on a contract can be discharged by performance by doing it by agreement so we can agree that actually the contract is discharge in. There's a reference to, for example, panels case where a lesser sum was accepted in discharge, Often agreement. It can be that one party except the breach. In other words, you agree to supplying me with a ton of gravel and then you ring me and say, I'm really, really sorry. I can't get hold of the gravel anymore there's been a lorry strike or something like that, and I say, Well, that's okay, don't worry. I'll get it from somebody else and say the contract is now at an end. It's being discharged because I accepted your breach and they can also be discharged and come to an end by being frustrated. And that means that something happens where the where the contract is now no longer possible on. Therefore, if you can't actually actually actually discharge a contract anymore, what does the law say about it? Does the law say that the contracts that exists or does the little say that the contract is now as an end? And if you look at the cases, you will see that through the there are examples from which we get the legal principles, you'll see them. There's a section on a remedies available for breach of contract on the most favored by the courts. Is that off damages? In other words, if we enter into an agreement on, I don't perform my side of the agreement that the courts will prefer to say, well, let's have a look at a sum of money that can be paid on there are lots of rules. A. So how those down just may be calculated on all of those are sensibly set out in the section, including loss of expectation, loss of profits on does lots of other things, like loss of immunity and things like this that the law has grown up with in order to say what actually, the way in which we can calculate these damages are going to be in this particular way. So do you have a look at that section of those judgments? Because all of that just says This is the way in which we will. We will, we will. We will put things right in our preferred way by getting someone to pay the other person a sum of money in damages. There's a classification of damages as well. There's ordinary damages, a special temperatures, exemplary nominal, contemptuous liquidity. Well, let's have a look at those ordinary damages are which naturally arise from the breach on DSO. Let's say that I run my car into you on you are injured in consequence of it. Then, of course, the I will pay you that your injuries. There also may be special logic losses in which case, you might say, Well, what you've disabled me from doing is actually earning money in the next few days by doing this, this or the other on therefore those maybe special damages. Exemplary now just which also called punitive or aggravated damages are for bad behavior. In other words, that they are there punishing me if you like, for for maybe denying liability or for doing something. But in something bad in the complex off off the claim that you have against me, normal damage is nominal. Where the court says what? Yes, I can see that there has been a breach of contract, but we're only going to offer a penny and damages because actually, this'll claim there's something wrong with this claim on. Therefore, even though you win, you're not going to get that much. But you're gonna get Tribunal man for it. A contemptuous damages of where the court disapproves of the way in which somebody has conducted the case on liquidated on unlit quid. Ated simply means that you've either got a set figure or you've gotta figure that needs to be calculated on liquidated damages can be written into a contract saying in the events that you don't perform your side of the contract. Then we will agree now that that you will pay me £5000 in damages. It's a fixed amount of therefore, that some is referred to as being liquidated on unlit quid. Eight is where you don't yet know what the amount is going to be until the amount is settled. Remedies for breach of contract exists in equity Onder There's a section on this as well in Section three. Rescission rectification injunction specific performance. These quite simply mean that if you rescind the contract, you put the parties back into the situation they would have been in had the contracts not be entered into. It's very straightforward and sensible. Rectification means that you put something right. Eso somebody hasn't actually done Something has happened. Maybe unexpectedly, maybe, that the terms were unclear. For example, on DSO, the court will say, Well, let's put those right then on give effect to at least something that makes the contract enforceable. An injunction is where the courts will either tell someone to do something or not do something on. One of the things that can tell someone to do is specific performance. In other words, you will perform your side off the contract. But as I said before, damages are preferred because if you agree, for example, to come and play or trumpet in my concert on you, then say, actually, I'm not coming, the court's not going to say not going to tell you I'm sorry, but you will. You will go your trumpet at that concert on DSO specific performance. Ordering someone to actually perform their side of the contract is not going to be ordered, where damages would be what they call an adequate remedy. Eso damages is the preferred method off compensating somebody for breach of contract. And that really is a summary off Section three off your unit 30 workbook. Andi Hope you found it useful as an introduction. Eso, I think to summarize it all, you have a read off the text, have a read off the cases that are summarized in your workbook. And don't be put off initially by any off the terminology or the little lasting expressions, either because they all are derived from logical common sense judgments that have arisen in particular. Contract cases on don't also be put off by the fact that some of these judgments are historic from the 19th 18 theme in the 17th century, because all of them, all of this contract law is applied today to our Internet age. So good luck with Section three. Have a read of it on Ben. Go back on, have a look at the terminology afterwards.
Webinar
Slides
345 Users
4 Courses
13 Reviews
