Weston LTD v Bloggs &amp Essay Example

the innocent party in breach of contract cases. To receive significant compensation for breach of contract, the injured party must prove that the breach caused actual harm that can be quantified with sufficient evidence and is not too remote.

Bloggs ; Co is advised that working towards the November deadline is a contractual obligation enforceable by law. Any obligations agreed upon by both parties should be clearly outlined in the express or implied Terms of the contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract allows both parties to agree upon their obligations and any specialist terms, such as potential losses, time restraints, and consequences of breach should be made explicitly clear at the time of agreement.

Bloggs ; Co should take into consideration the case of Hadley v Baxendale. In this case, Hadley hired Baxendale to transport a broken mill part to an engineer for repair. Due to Baxendale's late delivery, Hadley suffered losses as his mill remained non-operational. The court awarded Hadley damages of �25.00. This case established the remoteness test which has two limbs. The first limb is objective and pertains to general damages. The test considers what a reasonable person would know about the "ordinary course of things" (as observed in Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries) and what falls within reasonable contemplation. Direct loss and/or damage pertains to losses that fall within this first limb. The second limb covers knowledge of special circumstances that fall outside the ordinary course of things. The focus is on what could have been reasonably foreseen by the party in breach with awareness of such special circumstances. Knowledge of such circumstances can either be derived from the innocent party or

from external sources like independent information about the innocent party's business or a particular market.

The second limb of the contract covers "special damages", allowing for additional recoverable losses. Bloggs ; Co breached their duty by failing to deliver the agreed services to Western LTD before the end of November, resulting in potential profit loss over a busy business period. To recover their loss, Western LTD may claim damages, which are categorized into unliquidated damages and liquidated damages. Unliquidated damages are uncertain and not mathematically calculable or may be subject to contingencies. Liquidated damages, also known as liquidated and ascertained damages, are damages agreed upon at the contract date and recoverable in the event of a specified breach such as late performance.

In cases where damages cannot be predetermined, the amount recoverable is considered 'at large', meaning it will be determined by a court or tribunal in the event of a breach. To avoid this, contracts often include a liquidated damages provision. Business agreements typically create legal relations and are presumed to be contracts unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary within the agreement.

The concept of intention to create legal relations in a contract was demonstrated in Rose and Frank Co v Crompton Bros Ltd. Despite a statement in the contract stating the absence of such intention, this contract was deemed a gentlemen's agreement by the court. However, the deadline for completion, agreed upon by both parties, is legally enforceable. The Terms of a contract should clearly outline the obligations accepted by both parties, which can be express or implied. The doctrine of freedom of contract allows both parties to agree upon their obligations. It

is important to clarify any specialized terminology used in the contract at this stage to ensure mutual understanding.

The failure to complete the pier by the deadline set by Western Ltd would result in potential losses, time constraints and breach consequences for Bloggs & Co. Despite Bloggs & Co failing to fulfill their obligations outlined in the contract, Western Ltd cannot claim damages due to negligence as no consequences were mentioned prior to the breach. To claim damages, the terms and conditions must be clearly stated before concluding the contract. Western Ltd could have addressed this issue beforehand and displayed any implied terms in plain language.

According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, traders must sell goods that are both as described and of satisfactory quality. This was confirmed in the case of Roberts v Haylock (1832). If consumers find that the products do not meet these standards, they can reject them and ask for a refund within a reasonable time frame. Alternatively, they may choose to have the items repaired or replaced, or claim compensation. Additionally, if there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, it is implied that the goods will match their description under this law. Furthermore, all sold goods must be suitable for their intended purpose and considered satisfactory in terms of any descriptions or surrounding circumstances according to the Sale of Goods Act (1979).

Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083), any term that is not individually negotiated within a consumer contract will be deemed unfair and unenforceable if it lacks good faith, creates significant imbalances of rights and obligations detrimental to consumers.

Western Ltd's paint issue with Bloggs ; Co can only be attributed to supplier fault provided that the correct usage terms were followed without negligence on the part of Bloggs ; Co. Moreover, as "pier paint" was expressly requested by Western Ltd, responsibility for addressing customer concerns rests with the supplier.

The concept in English common law that a pledge made on behalf of a third party cannot be enforced by them is not completely recognized in the majority of US states. Nonetheless, some courts provide opportunities for a third party to claim compensation or advantages from the person who made the promise if they have been negatively impacted due to contract violation, or would have gained benefits had it been executed properly, subject to specific conditions.

The 1999 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act grants third parties the same remedies available in a breach of contract lawsuit as if they were party to the contract. These remedies may include damages, injunctions, specific performance and other forms of relief. The promisor is accountable for ensuring that the product supplied to the promisee lasts for ten years.

Although the product has only lasted 6 months instead of the promised 10 years, the contracts act 1999 provides protection for the promisor against double liability, where a third party enforces a term of the contract already enforced by the promisee. Therefore, if Bloggs and Co were to claim damages, they would become liable to redress Western Ltd. To summarize, as a third party, Western Ltd can enforce any term of the contract between Bloggs ; Co and Dulux. Since the paint does not meet its description, Dulux is liable under the

sale of goods act 1979 for damages. In essence, the case can be analyzed by evaluating the offer and acceptance element.

Although Dulux's offer may have had certain terms and conditions attached to it, the offer was public and not exclusive to Western Ltd. As a result, Dulux is responsible for providing goods that are fit for purpose and match their description, even if there is no direct contract between the parties. Western Ltd accepted the offer and requested Dulux's specific type of paint, which was likely influenced by Dulux's statement. This strengthens the case for Western Ltd.