Business Law - The Contract

Extraits

[...] It seems that there is not any stipulation in the contract about liquidated damages. As a result she will have to look for unliquidated damages. Damages are designed to compensate a loss, so it will be important to look for Mandy's loss. She lost a well paid job, an interesting job related to his studies, a nice trip in Majorca, the cost of a holiday in a three stars hotel, and the cost of a travel to Majorca. But to award damages the court will have to observe a guide line. [...]

[...] Only a breach of conditions can terminate the contract. The breach of warranties will just have for consequence to give the right to damages. Nevertheless a breach of conditions will not always terminate the contract because the injured party will have a choice. He may wish to be discharged from the contract or he may prefer to carry on with the contract and claim damages for the breach. It is sure that the decision of the company is a breach of condition, because it was a very important terms which was breached by the company, the term related to the employment. [...]

[...] It was held in the Chite and Carter Ltd v Mc Gregor, in 1961. This rule according to Lord Reid, and to the courts, does not apply if the party does not legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages. It is possible to think that Mandy did not accept the breach as a breach. Indeed she went at the hotel where she had to go according to the contract, stay there the time stipulated in the contract, so it can been seen as the execution of her part of the contract. [...]

[...] Business Law - The Contract A contract has been concluded between an undergraduate student in moder language, Mandy, and Limited Horizons Holiday. The company wanted to engage Mandy to act as its representative for its Majorcan Culture Holidays, for a summer season, for a sum of 3.000 and accommodation, food and travelling expenses. The problem is that in the contract was written a term requires Mandy to attend a total of five training day before commencing the job. But some of these training were held during her examination; consequently, she just managed to attend on three days days before her departure the company informed her that she will not bee needed. [...]

[...] Consequently, there was a breach of terms of the contract. But something need to be analyzed, because she did not attend to all the training day because she had examination, so it will be interesting to see if these events will excuse Mandy. The principle is that a person is not excused simply because outside events had made performance impossible. But there is exception to this principle, with the doctrine of frustration. This doctrine says that is further performance of the contract is prevented because of events beyond the control of parties, the contract is terminated and the parties discharged form their obligations. [...]