Julie Waters and Cheapskate Film Company Essay Example

the party who submits the last counter-offer that is accepted by the other party. In the case of Julie Waters and Cheapskate Film Company, Julie Waters submitted the last counter-offer and is entitled to an additional �50,000. Following these precedents, it can be concluded that Cheapskate Film Company has a legally binding contract with Julie Waters on the terms she introduced through her counter-offer, which was accepted when they asked her to begin filming upon receiving the contract from her. As a result, Cheapskate Film Company owes Julie Waters the extra money.

In this text, the analysis of a contractual principle is presented. It questions whether the Police can demand the balance of monies they believe they are owed from Cheapskate Film Company. For a contract to be enforceable, it must have consideration. Consideration can be defined in several ways, but here we are referring to the modern approach. Sir Frederik Pollock's "Principles of Contract" (1915) defines consideration as "An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and promise thus given for value is enforceable." This means that if one party promises to fulfill an obligation, the other party can enforce that promise by paying a price.

After establishing the meaning of consideration, it's important to determine if there was enough consideration. For our scenario with the Police and Cheapskate Film Company, sufficient consideration falls under the category of an existing obligation being fulfilled. Upon reviewing the contract, it appears that there is enough consideration to validate the contract. This is due to the fact that the Police are providing

extra officers beyond their obligation and because less officers were deemed sufficient.

On the request of the film company, Cheapskate has exceeded their obligation and thus owes the Police �8,000. To support this claim, I will refer to past cases as a precedent. One such case is Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925 AC 270], which established that the police were obligated to protect premises and had discretion in deciding the level of protection necessary. If the manager requested extra officers and the police agreed, it constituted sufficient consideration for a promise to pay extra money. Additionally, the HOL relied on the decision in England v Davidson (1840) 11 Ad 7 EI 856, further supporting my conclusion that there was sufficient consideration for a legally binding contract in the Glassbrook case.

The final legal contractual principle to be analyzed is the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. This principle involves the use of estoppel, which prevents a person from making a statement they would normally be entitled to make. Promissory Estoppel applies estoppel in cases where a promise is made to release one party from contractual duties, and enforcing the contract without consideration of mitigating circumstances would result in blatant injustice.

Based on the legal case of Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947 KB 130), this principle states that a promise to excuse a party from contractual obligations with legal intent, which was intended to be acted upon and was indeed acted upon, will prevent the promissory from providing evidence that there was no consideration. Using the High Trees case as a precedent, we can apply this principle to the situation where Cheapskate Film Company's

production of 'WI Girls' becomes successful. At this point, the Police have the right to claim the full amount of money owed by Cheapskate, as they have exceeded their existing obligations and are now able to pay off their debt. As stated by Denning J in the case of High Trees (obiter), the Police can request full payment starting from the moment WI Girls became successful. However, if the Police were to sue Cheapskate for the period when they were facing financial difficulties (which they were not), they would not be allowed to enforce payment as it would be unfair to go back on a promise that Cheapskate relied on when continuing with the contract.

The case of D&C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966 2QB 617] saw the plaintiffs, who were builders, receiving some amount in cheque and later demanding the rest through a lawsuit. The defendant, in response, pleaded promissory Estoppel, stating that by accepting the cheque, the builders had agreed to accept partial payment for the debt owed. However, the court rejected this claim and ruled in favor of the builders, recognizing that they had been forced to accept whatever payment they could get. Similar principles apply here, where the Police have also been put in a difficult situation and have had to accept partial payment assuming that Cheapskate Film Company was experiencing financial troubles.

The Cheapskate Film Company has given only �2,000, but the Police can demand the remaining balance as per the established principle in High Trees case. Even though the film company is in a sound financial condition, Julie Waters has the right to make her claim, and the

Police can also claim their due amount. As demonstrated by citing precedents and guidelines from past cases, this conclusion is reached.