Principles of contract law case study
Introduction
A contract is an aspect of practice that is common among parties that are engaged in business. It refers to a pact among individuals, groups, or companies forming a reciprocal obligation that is enforced by regulations or laws. In some cases, the obligations are not followed by either party of the contract. In such cases, the penalty is attracted based on the amount of damaged the party has caused. This paper focuses on a contract law case study where the principles of contract law will be applicable. The argument will be based on a consumer and a buyer.
(A) Refusal to purchase the apple, banana and the coke
Following that fact that these products are categorized under self-service goods, Johnny has the right to refuse to purchase them. Also, it can be equated to the sense that Johnny changed his mind and found no interest in the self-service products anymore. This can be categorized under a voidable contract. This contract state that a party is able to avoid a contract if the party faces some psychological pressure or influence.
Besides, under the contract law principle of capacity, the parties entering into the contract must have the capacity to understand the contract activities. However, the contract agreement can also be avoided under the incapacity of either of the parties or both. A party or both must indicate that they are incapacitated to fulfill the obligations of the contract.
In this case study, Johnny’s decision to fulfill the obligations of the contract, for instance, by paying the price of the products he selected out of self-service, has been affected by the psychological pressure. The pressure has resulted from the thought and stress that the exams are to begin in a week’s time. In addition, Johnny also informed the cashier about the circumstances that have made him lack interest in the meal.
Based on the Bawlf Grain Co. v. Ross (1917), under Oakes v. Turquand [6], it is ruled that a contract is considered voidable in the circumstances that a contract has been affected with other psychological instability factors but cannot be considered void. An example of the influential factor here is drunk. Referring to the case of Johnny, the contract can be tampered based on the psychological stress instigated by the forthcoming exams. Therefore, Johnny has all the right to avoid paying for the apple, banana, and the coke.
(B) Possibility of Johnny returning the chicken curry and vegetables
In this case, Johnny may not be allowed to return the chicken curry and vegetables that he had specifically ordered. This is based on the fact that the hotel has used resources in preparing the specific meal that Johnny requested. In the event that Johnny has to return the items, he must make either partial or whole payment.
Considering the contract law principle governing the intention of entering into a contract, both parties have a legal responsibility to undertake for the accomplishment of the contract. By entering the university Cafeteria and ordering food, Johnny had in mind the intention of being responsible for the resultant obligations and, for example, paying prices of the items. Ordering for the items and returning them without payment can be considered as a breach of the expressly stated contract.
The same context can be referred from the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Limited v New Garage & MotorCo Limited [1915] A.C 79. The case is based on the breach of contract where damages had occurred. It was concluded that damages that are liquidated or a penalty has to be imposed through the formulation of a clause that regulates the instances of damages.
With reference to the current case, Johnny is legible to be subjected to the damages made by ordering the preparation of the food items requested. Here, he can be charged with liquidated damage. If the cafeteria has no such a clause, it has the right to form one with the client. The agreement can be made whether Johnny pays the whole cost or part of it.
(C) The difference of answer given in (A) if Johnny had taken a bite of the apple, a sip of the coke, and peeled the banana.
Using the items means paying for them. This is because it appears like breaching a contract when Johnny failed to pay for the items, yet he used them. Once goods had been ordered, both the cafeteria cashier and Johnny are expressly in a contract. This means that the consumer, Johnny, has the responsibility of paying for the services. Even though payment obligations are on the consumer, the condition can be considered voidable when the items are not used.
However, in cases where the consumer used the goods, the consumer must pay for the services and the items. In the case of Johnny, the response given in the first question (A) is inversely different from the response given in this case. This is because Johnny had used the terms meaning that they cannot be sold to any other client. Based on the principle of agreement, offer as well as acceptance is mutual aspect s that go hand in hand. This means that a party has to propose an offer while he other accepts it.
In the case study, the cafeteria service providers had made the offer of providing the services to the customers while Johnny, as a customer, accepted the offer. This has been shown when Johnny ordered the items from the cafeteria.
In addition, in this case, Johnny can be charged with either liquidated damage or a penalty is that he fails to pay for the items. The condition can be categorized under loss and damages of the consumer on the products of the buyer.
In summary, entering into a contract involves a mutual agreement that both parties have to consider. Such agreements come with the corresponding obligations in which each party must take part. However, in some cases, one party may fail to perform the obligations assigned. In this case, the contract can be rendered voidable when the party has been affected by some psychological pressure. Cases of contract breach are also evidenced in which case; a penalty is imposed on the party that has breaded the contract.
References
Bonell, M. J. (2009). An international restatement of contract law: the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Brill Nijhoff.
Peel, E., & Treitel, G. H. (2007). The law of contract (pp. 1-2). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Poole, J. (2016). Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Phillips, A. M. (2017). Reading the fine print when buying your genetic self online: direct-to-consumer genetic testing terms and conditions. New Genetics and Society, 36(3), 273-295.
Marotta-Wurgler, F. (2009). Are “Pay Now, Terms Later” Contracts Worse for Buyers? Evidence from Software License Agreements. The Journal of Legal Studies, 38(2), 309-343.
Ayres, I., & Schwartz, A. (2014). The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stan. L. Rev., 66, 545.