CONTRACT LAW ESSAY Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

CONTRACT practice of law - Essay ExampleIn the case of Mark and JETS, it can be established that Mark coveted and needinessed the services offered by JETS, specifically, the provisions that (d) a Hamletjet 1000 must be available, and one of a list of designated pilots must be on call, 24 hours a day (e) all pilots will keep back a jet at the ready for clients use within 30 minutes of receiving a require from a client. Since the stipulations were clear, it is assumed that the offered services are vital and strictly followed by both scatteries and that any violation of the stipulation would render breach of contract or even economic loss on the part of Mark. In the instance that Mark needed a Hamletjet in February 11, and that immediately informed JETS about this need was part and covered by the contract. It is expected that in 30 minutes, the Hamletjet will be available for Mark. failure of the JETS to provide a transport for Mark is a breach of the stipulations. Inducing Brea ch of Contract chthonian the doctrine of substantial performance, Lord Mansfield indicated that in common law, it is a term in the contract that creates an tariff to be performed by one troupe to the contract, and subsequently, further obligation arises on the side of the other party (The Modern Law Review, 1975). The condition upon which the entire contract, or as a whole, becomes dependent on the conditions indicated on the contract, of which two had been violated by JETS in the disadvantage of Mark. It should be noned that no further bargain was taken after the failure to deliver on the part of JETS. Had the two parties Mark and JETS met and discussed to create a new agreement, the case could have taken the route of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co., of which Lord Cairns say that It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed, that if parties, who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain good results, afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a itinerary of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who differently might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them when it would be inequitable having opine to the dealings which have taken place between the parties (Hughes v Metropolitan Railway, 1877). Lord OHagan, on the same case mentioned, noted the failure of one party to oblige upon the agreement of both parties, to which, he commented, They entered into a covenant and if they have failed to fulfil their undertaking they must abide the results, however onerous, unless the circumstances excuse their default in the view of a Court of Equity. But if they acted, or failed to act, through a drift induced by the conduct of the Plaintiff if they were misled by it into the belief that his strict legal ri ght was prone or suspended for the time, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the forfeiture which was so accomplished. In Lumley v Gye, it had been ruled out that liability depended upon the contracting party having committed an