Essay on Contract and nd Odr Paty

Submitted By Kuntal2
Words: 2443
Pages: 10

REALITY OF CONSENT(“ad idem” – meeting of minds & genuine consent)//Consent absent if: Mist/ Misrep/ Duress/Undue inf/Uncon cndctMstaks:Common(both patys mak same mis)Leaf/Int’l Galleries,Claim Of Inocnt Msrep Fald cos of tym,it ws a picture wch was enuf2mak a cont/Pritchards v Merchants both parties wer of the view dat d insuree is alive, hwevr hedied earlier derefor cont will be void(not illegal)at CLMutual(both mistkn diff mist–no mtg of minds)Raffles/Wilchelhausdey contracted on2difrnt ships1ws departurin in Nov n odr in Dec.derefoe contr wl b void(nt ill)/Unilatrl1Pty mstakn nd odr paty nows/ought2baware bt ds nthn2 crct it.sch cases usualy involv a mstk as2 d identify of d patis of d cntrct,n wl d mjorty of cases cncern fraud,it shud nt b asumed dat ds is d nly way unilat Mstk operataes.Taylor v Johnson/Lewis v Avery fake identity, car purchasd, sold furder, voidabl and n d title has passd away to sm odr prsn-probably voidabl,unles identity is of vital imp-void/Non est factum(mstak as2 d nature of a doc),d paty rasin d defnc mst sho dat d doc is radically diff4m dat wich d signer expected nd failure2read nd nderstan ws nt due2carlsnes n nglignce/Petelier v Cullen/L’Estrange v Graucob (sign=bound)– void /voidablMisrepresentationFraudulent(falses’mnt of fact mad noingly/wdout belief in its truth or reklesly- intntion2reduc odr in2cont). Injurd paty- action in tort of deceit & cont voidabl- dmgs & rescn(Derry v Peek)
Inn(maker of s’ment of fact believs on reasble ground its true bt its not–no intent2mslead)In CL no remedy bt can resist action4spec perf thru equity Whitington v Seal-Hayne (1900)Neg (maker of s’ment inn c’lessly makes s’ment-inn party relies on suffers loss/dmg) Negligent misrep was made not coz of fraudulent intentions but because of carelessness.
Duressuse of violnc ,ilegal threts aganst a prson,dere guds o economic intrsts2forc dem2entr cont aganst der will.der is lack of volntry agrmnt.absence of genuine cnsnt of weaker paty.1 (Barton v Armstrong) – efct on contract: voidable
Undue influence(equity)Abuse/improper use of posn of power –focus on weaker party & lack of genuine consent.(Allcard&Skinner)2 presumptions : a) Fiduciary relationship (trust b/n teacher-stu):undue inflnc presumed to exist & upto stronger to rebut; b) Non-fid r’ship : undue infl nt presumd–weakr2prov it– efct voidablUncon conduct (equity)Strongr paty abuses sup barg power/ posn to induce weaker into cont– has to be under spl adv (ilitrcy/siknes/povrty)focus of strongr paty takin adv of wekr paty(comrcial bank of Aus v Amadiovoiadable.(key2 scsful claim of uncon.cndct is2estblsh dat d wkr paty was in a position of spcl dsadvntag (povty,skness,age,iltracy)ds mst be provd2 estblsh dat d wkr paty was nt in equal bargaining(Louth v Diprose)
Signed doc: sign doc = bound (L’estrange v F. Graucob Ltd). Invalid 4 fraud/ Misrep
Unsigned doc: ( Ticket cases: “would reasonable person believe doc is receipt / containing contractual terms & is it reasonable to believe recipient receive notice of clause?” (Causer v Browne / Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon). ( Non ticket cases: To be valid, any signs/notices intended to form part of a contract must be brought to the notice of the parties before (during contractual negotiations) (Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd). Exception: frequent users of prog (Boelmain New Ferry Co/ Robertson)
Excln clause: Seeks to limit /preclude liability of 1 party to cont to other (Park at owner’s risk,)
Doctrine of freedom of contract – courts will give effect to exclusion clause even if its harsh.
Legality:of contract:(corts luk at y contract was made)
Contracts affected by statues(a)contract may b2do smthng wich a statu forbids.(b)cntract may b1were d statu expresly or implidly proibits the makingof the agrement itself of the prformanc of the cntract.(c)though lawful on facts,may b mad in ordr2efct a prpose dat a statue renders unlawful.(d)though lawful on fact,may b prformd