Facebook
Home Contract Law

Contract Law

Important Facts About Breach of Contract

Important Facts About Breach of Contract

What is a Breach of Contract?
A breach of contract occurs when a party, who agreed to formulate a contractual obligation with another party, does not carry out the intended function of the contract. As a result, a breach of contract is a legal cause of action where the binding agreement latent in the contract, is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract. 
A breach of contract can result in an individual not carrying-out a specific performance that was expected by the contract or by interfering with the other party’s ability to perform the task. 
If a party, who agreed to formulate a contract with another party, does not fulfill his or her contractual promise or has given information to the other party that he or she will not perform his expected duty as labeled in the contract, the party is said to have performed a breach of contract. In addition, if the individual is unable to perform the obligations latent in the contract for whatever reason, a breach of contract is present. 

Types of Breaches:
Minor Breach of Contract: A minor breach of contract constitutes a party’s inability to perform the full task expected by the contract; a minor breach of contract is referred to as an immaterial or partial breach of contract. In these instances, the non-breaching party cannot sue for specific performance, and can only seek legal action for actual damages sustained. 
Material Breach of Contract: A material breach of contract is realized through any failure to perform, which ultimately permits the other party to the contract to collect damages because of the breach or compel performance. 
Fundamental Breach of Contract: A fundamental breach of contract is a breach that permits the aggrieved party to terminate performance of the formulated contract. In these scenarios, the non-breaching party is entitled to sue the breaching party for damages sustained. 
Anticipatory Breach of Contract: A breach of contract through anticipatory repudiation is an unequivocal indication that the party refuses to undertake the project or deliver performance as stipulated in the contract. Included in this type of breach, is a situation where a future non-performance is inevitable. This type of breach of contract allows the non-breaching party the option to treat the breach as immediate, which ultimately allows them to terminate the contract and sue for damages, without waiting for the actual breach to take place. 

Remedies of a Breach of Contract:

In most instances, the judicial remedy for a breach of contract is the delivery of monetary compensation for damages incurred. If the failure to perform or satisfy the contractual obligation cannot be redressed through monetary compensation, the underlying court may enter an equity decree, which will award an injunction or the delivery of a specific performance. 
The aggrieved person possesses the obligation to mitigate damages through reasonable means. In the United States, under contract law, punitive damages are typically not awarded for a breach of contract but may be awarded for other causes of action in a lawsuit. 

Quick and Easy Contract Law Cases

Quick and Easy Contract Law Cases

 

 
Contract law cases can be classified under the general law of obligations. The general category of the Law of Obligations includes Torts Law, Unjust Enrichment Law, and Restitution Law, besides Contracts Law.
 
 
One of the most famous contract law cases is the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Although this case of contracts law is included in English contract law cases, the relevant principles of contracts law in the English system were adapted to the American courts.
 
 
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is one of the most famous contract law cases since it involved a manufacturer who offered a flu remedy called a “carbolic smoke ball.” The makers of the smoke ball, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, advertised in a newspaper that buyers who developed the flu despite using the smoke ball properly would be given 100 Pounds as a refund. 
 
 
The Company claimed that the advertisement was not a serious offer, but the judges in the case ruled that because there was a statement from the company that they had deposited money in an account so that they would be able to make the payments if there were any claims, a reasonable person had cause to believe that there was a sincere offer, thus meeting the requirement that there be an offer and acceptance to form a contract.

 

All You Need to Know About Restatement of Contracts

All You Need to Know About Restatement of Contracts

The Restatement of Contracts is one of the most widely recognized and most frequently cited legal treatises that is part of jurisprudence in the United States of America. It is taught to most American law students during the first year of law school. It is the most-cited non-binding authority in common law in the United States.
The Restatement of Contracts is a peerless work in terms of overall influence and recognition among individuals on both the bar and the bench. The only possible rival for its recognition is the Restatement of Torts. The Second Edition of the Restatement of Contracts was begun in 1962, with the American Law Institute completing its compilation in 1979.
The general purpose of a restatement of the law is to allow judges and lawyers to have a general understanding of a set of treatises on legal subjects. The Restatement of Contracts allows individuals to have a general understanding of the principles of contract law. The Restatements of Contracts is one of the twenty three Restatements compiled by the American Law Institute.
The Restatement of Contracts is not legally binding, but it carries a great deal of weight and is highly persuasive because it represents the thoughts of prominent legal professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. The Restatement of Contracts is a reflective consensus reached by the American legal system and professionals, both of what the law is and, in rare cases, what the law should be.

Important Facts to Know When Refusing To Sign A Contract

Important Facts to Know When Refusing To Sign A Contract

Contact law encompasses a variety of types of contacts. In many cases, the rules and laws apply to all contracts. However, there are some specific laws which only apply to certain contracts.
For example, if an individual refuses to sign an updated contract, the repercussions would depend on the type of contract. In some cases, there is no recourse if individuals refuse to sign an updated contract, and the other party could in fact be charged with breach of contract if they refuse to honor the old contract.
For example, employers that distribute a new contract may request that all employees sign it. If an employee refuses to do so, they are still under the old contract. If that employee were terminated based on the new contract, the employer could be charged with breach of contract for the original contract.
 

Definition of Designation

Definition of Designation

Designation is the term used to describe ownership one has over something. Designation is used commonly with wills and trusts. Designation of record is what the writer of the will or trust creates to submit to the court so that the court knows and understands who is in full control of the contract and the individual’s estates and assets after they have passed.
Designation of Record must be completed with the creator of the contract, the individual who will hold designation, and a lawyer. After the creator and the designator have settled on an agreement, the Designation of Record will then be signed off on and delivered to the court. Finally, the court will approve of the documents and the contract will be put into place. Generally, the contract will go into immediate effect at this point.

Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means

Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means

One of the essential tenets of contract law is that in order for a legal and valid contract to be formed in the eyes of the courts, there must be a “meeting of the minds” between the parties forming the contract. The parties to the contract can be individuals, or a legal entity can be entered into a contract by an official in a position of power in the legal entity.
However, establishing the existence of a meeting of the minds is very difficult for the courts to determine. If there is any dispute about the terms of a contract before a meeting of the minds develops, the courts will show a preference to interpret the terms of the contract in a way which does the least harm or damage to all the parties involved.
A meeting of the minds may also be found to not exist if the contract fails a “reasonable man” test. The reasonable man test is that a normal person with the range of knowledge that a person of a similar background to the person disputing some or all of the terms of the contract, would have reasonably interpreted the contract in a particular manner. The reasonable man test can be influenced by the specific individuals who are involved in the contract at issue.

Read This Before Entering Into A Quasi Contract

Read This Before Entering Into A Quasi Contract

What is a Quasi Contract?
A quasi-contract is a fictional contract that was created by courts to promote equitable treatment. As a result of this definition, a quasi-contract is not an actual, legally-binding document, but instead a legal substitute for a contract that is formed to impose equity between two distinct parties. 
The basic concept of a quasi-contract is that a contractual agreement should have been formed in situations where such an agreement was not realized. The quasi-contract is thus used when a court system feels as though it is appropriate to create an obligation to avoid an injustice and to promote equality between two parties. 
In most cases, the actual existence of a real contract is required for a defendant to be held liable for services rendered; however, in many jurisdictions throughout the United States, under certain circumstances, a plaintiff may be entitled to seek restitution under a quasi-contract.
Basic Elements of a Quasi Contract:
The basic elements of a quasi-contract require three fundamental principles. The first element is that the plaintiff furnished valuable goods or required specific services to be rendered with a reasonable expectation of being compensated if the defendant breached or failed to meet these expectations. Secondly, the defendant must knowingly have accepted the aforementioned goods and obtained a direct benefit through this acceptance. 
And lastly, the defendant must receive benefits by the goods or services that are regarded as unfair in situations where the plaintiff received no compensation.
In a standard, legally-binding contract, both parties agree to the stipulations of the deal and the surrounding subject matter, to affirm the agreement and to make the contract binding, the parties enter into an oral or written agreement prior to exchange of goods or services. 
In a quasi-contract; however, one of the parties does not intend to enter the contract. Even though mutual assent is not achieved, the court can decide to create a contract to promote fairness between the two parties. 
In most instances, a quasi-contract is created when disputes over payments of goods or services arise between two parties. When these situations arise, the remedy for a quasi-contract is typically limited to whatever is necessary to prevent the presence of unjust enrichment obtained by one of the parties. 
This typically means, in regards to the creation of a quasi-contract, that damages are restricted to the cost of the plaintiff’s materials and labor. In these situations, profits are excluded on the grounds that it is unfair for a party who did not want to enter a contract to pay the profits to the other party. 

Easy Guide to Contract Law

Easy Guide to Contract Law

What is a Contract Law?
 
Contract Law is the legal field that undertakes the regulation, establishment, and oversight of legislation pertinent to contracts; contracts are defined as legally binding agreements whose expressed legality upon construction is required in order to substantiate the authenticity of the contract itself. A contract will typically include at least 2 entities who must agree to participate within the expressed stipulations and terms illustrated within the text of the contract. A legal contract will typically include 4 primary components:
An ‘Offer’ is the initial provision of the terms expressed within the contract
‘Acceptance’ is the agreement enacted by both parties with regard to participate in the contract
A ‘Counteroffer’ is an acknowledgement of the terms expressed within the contract – a counteroffer is not synonymous with the endorsement of a contact
The ‘Consideration’ is the identification of valued items that may be used as collateral in the event of a breached – or broken – contract
What is an Illegal Contract?
 
The precepts within Contract Law define an illegal contract as a contractual agreement deemed to be absent of the required satisfaction of legal statutes necessary for the contract to be viewed as legal. Within contract law, contracts may be deemed as illegal due for the following reasons:
The inclusion of a minor as a party to the endorsement or creation of a contract is considered to be illegal; as a result of their legal rights and liberties – in accordance with their respective age(s) – a minor is considered to be ineligible to endorse a contract
Contract Law states that the forced endorsement of a contract, which is defined as the participation in either the construction or signing of a contract under duress or threats imposed renders the contract to be illegal
Contract Law states that contracts or agreements including the implementation or involvement of products, services, or activities considered to be illegal within the jurisdiction in which the contract was constructed or endorsed is rendered as an illegal contract
Contract vs. Agreement
 
Although the definitions of the two terms tend to become blurred both through misuse, as well as varying terminology, the precepts of contract law express that a contract and an agreement are not synonymous. While a contract may include a variety of agreements within its content, the primary difference between a contract and an agreement lies in the fact that the failure of one – or both parties – to adhere to the terms expressed within an agreement will typically be unable to result in legal action or punitive recourse. Conversely, the violation of the terms of a contract – upon that substantiation of that contract’s legality – may be subject to legal action or punitive recourse.
Contract Law Trials and Hearings
With regard to the legal review of contracts, Contract Law will oftentimes integrate the statutes expressed within tort law; a tort is derived from the French word meaning ‘wrong’ with regard to a wrong suffered by or upon an individual in conjunction to the involvement of another individual or entity:
Upon review of a broken – or breached – contract, the precepts of contract Law implements the legal procedure in which individual responsibility and action is classified and weighed without the mention or facilitation of a binding and legal contract
The analysis of any or all respective liability and participation is evaluated through litigation, case review, and witness testimony with regard to a broken or breached contract

What Does Without Recourse Mean

What Does Without Recourse Mean

Without recourse is a legal
phrase used by an endorser of a negotiable instrument to signify that if the
payment of the instrument is denied or refused, the endorser will not be held
responsible. An
endorser is an individual who signs a document that didn’t originally make it.

The negotiable instruments involved with this
definition typically refer to business or personal checks or promissory notes.
An individual who endorses such an instrument will attach the phrase
“without recourse” to specifically decline the responsibility of
payment. Through the incorporation of this phrase, the endorser declines
responsibility by virtue of the endorsement and becomes merely the assignor of
the title to the negotiable instrument.

The without recourse clause is governed by the
broader laws associated with the distribution of Commercial paper, which is
codified through the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States Federal
Government. As a result, a without recourse attachment will be honored by all
courts assuming basic requirements are met.

Promissory Estoppel Overview

Promissory Estoppel Overview

What is Promissory Estoppel?
In a general sense, Promissory Estoppel is a legal doctrine used in American law, which allows a party to recover on a promise, even if the promise was made without a formal consideration. In essence, a Promissory Estoppel prevents an individual from arguing that an underlying promise offered should not be upheld.
In addition, a Promissory Estoppel requires that a reliance on the promise was deemed reasonable and that the individual attempting to enforce the promise actually relied on the promise to his or her detriment. As is common with numerous forms of legality issues, the precise legal requirements needed to enact Promissory Estoppel may vary between jurisdictions within the United States.
A common example of Promissory Estoppel is where an employer offers an oral promise to pay an employee a monthly amount for the remainder of the individual’s retirement. If the employee relies on the promise and subsequently retires, the employer will likely be estopped, based on the principle of a promissory estoppel, from reneging on this promise to offer the monthly retirement payment.
Laws surrounding a Promissory Estoppel:
In a typical case of a promise or a contract, the law requires that a party receive consideration for the agreement. Consideration refers to a valuable asset that is exchanged between the two parties and the time of the agreement or the promise was made. Consideration can take the form of an asset, the exchange of monies, or the promise to refrain from doing something. Regardless of the form of consideration required in a contract, a consideration is needed in order to make an agreement or promise legally enforceable.
That being said, because the court system aims to achieve fairness, a legal forum will apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel in situations where a consideration is made. Even if an enforceable contract is not generated, the law may enforce the promise if a reasonable reliance and detriment are proven.
Differences between the Promissory Estoppel Doctrine and the Doctrine of Estoppel:
A promissory estoppel relies on a promise, while the doctrine of estoppel relies on a statement of fact. As a result of this foundational difference, the two doctrines complicate contractual agreements or the statement of a promise. Even if an agreement is not based on a formal consideration and even if promissory estoppel is not enforceable, because the situation did not include a promise, a court system can still enforce the “agreement” as a means to promote fairness.
This somewhat loose interpretation of promissory estoppel enables the court to impose obligations on the parties through the delivery of a quasi-contract—a doctrine that implied in law.
123...5Page 1 of 5
Disclaimer: There is no confidential attorney-client relationship formed by using Laws.com website and information provided on this site is not legal advice. For legal advice, please contact your attorney. Attorneys listed on this website are not referred or endorsed by this website. By using Laws.com you agree to Laws.com Terms Of Use.
Facebook
©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Free Coupon
X