Contract law is based in three different areas. The first, and rarer, basis for contract law is a specific statute governing a contract. The second area is the Uniform Commercial Code. The more pervasive foundation of contract law is common law. Common law is not written down or codified in any particular place. Common law is instead the tradition of law in a particular jurisdiction.

Common law as it reflects on contract law is influenced by the findings of British common law in effect at the time of the American Revolution in 1775. The common law decisions that have been handed down by individual states since British common law ceased to be the governing principle of the location and any relevant finding by a Federal judge.

Common law is a general term for any legal precedent that is taken from a judge’s individual ruling. The main statute which provides the foundation of English common law is based on the interpretation of the 1677 Statute of Frauds. It has been incorporated into the common law heritage of all fifty states in the United States at some point.

The main concern in a common law system regarding contracts is if one party is allowed to sue another person. Contract law in a common law system calls this idea the concept of privity of contract. In contract law, privity answers the question of whether an individual party has the legal standing to sue another party, as well as what the responsibility is of the party being sued. Privity in contract law says that rights cannot be extended to an individual who has not entered into the contract in question, and that a third party not involved in the contract has no liability for the terms of the contract.

Privity is a complicated but essential aspect in contract law in common law systems. The 1968 English case of Beswick v. Beswick examines the complications when two parties enter into a contract to provide for the welfare of a third party. The elderly Mr. Beswick and his nephew created a contract in which Mr. Beswick sold his company to his nephew. One of the terms of the contract was that Mr. Beswick’s would-be widow, Mrs. Beswick, be provided with stipend after Mr. Beswick’s death.

The nephew agreed to the contract, but after the death of his uncle declined to provide the stipend. The nephew claimed he was under no obligation to provide the stipend because his aunt had not been involved in the original contract. The court in this case upheld the nephew’s contention. However, because Mrs. Beswick was the administrix of his estate, and thus a party to the contract because the estate maintained an interest in the contract he was still compelled to uphold the terms of the contract.

Outside of circumstances such as that in Beswick v. Beswick where the third party assumes the interests in one of the original parties, the only other time a third party can become directly involved in a contract under the concept of privity inherent in a common law system is when one of the original parties to the contract has been acting on behalf of the third party from the beginning.

For instance, John is working for Joe. Joe and Jack enter into a contract. John would then be able to compel Jack to fulfill the contract because the duties in a contract can be transferred. If Joe were not working for John, John would be unable to force Jack to complete the contract.

Contract law has been construed historically that if ambiguous language is employed, then the contract will be interpreted in such a way as to give favor to the party that signed the contract, not the party that wrote the contract. Contracts law is derived from a common law heritage. 

Another major function of a contract is to document what each party to a contract is obligated to do for the other. Contract laws also serve to assign consequences in the event either party is unable to perform the duties taken up under the terms laid out in the original contract.

Contracts law is also meant to uphold the basic processes by which the economy functions in the United States and in all countries throughout the world, though not every country has a common law basis for understanding contract law.

Contract law in other systems may have a heritage derived from civil law, Islamic law, socialist law, and/or from tribal law. Depending on each country’s specific views of contracts, law systems in the country may assign more protection to the consumer or may afford more protection to the corporation.

The UCC, or Uniform Commercial Code, developed as an attempt to streamline business laws across different jurisdictions within the United States. The ten of the eleven Articles have been met with universal adoption.

The UCC was considered essential as a result of corporations engaging in interstate commerce more frequently throughout history. As interstate commerce proliferated, corporations complained about the fact that they were having to deal with what were sometimes radically different standards for completing a single commercial transaction. 

There are eleven Articles which comprise the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 1 of the UCC is known as the General Provisions of the UCC, and the other Articles are: Article 2, Sales; Article 2a, Leases; Article 3, Negotiable Instruments; Article 4, Bank Deposits; Article 4a, Funds Transfers; Article 5, Letters of Credit; Article 6, Bulk Transfers and Bulk Sales; Article 7, Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lading and Other Documents of Title; Article 8, Investment Securities; and Article 9, Secured Transactions.

In 2003, Article 2 and Article 7 were modernized in a major revision, though the revisions to Article 2 have not been adopted by any states yet. Although Article 6 is considered obsolete by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, it remains in effect in many jurisdictions.

Despite being present in one document, each Article of the UCC bears only the slightest connection to any other. Most Articles bear little relevance on the others. The exception is that each Article uses terms defined in Article 1, and Article 9 covers the paperwork required to support the intermediate Articles.

One of the essential tenets of business contract law is that the terms of the contract must be one to which a When interpreting a contract there are several things that an arbiter or jury must examine. The first is to determine the intention of the parties to the contract. There are many ways to do so including the plain-meaning-rule.

When determining intent, the judgment must conform itself to the intent of the parties and must be alert to times when the parties’ intents deviate from the what would normally be expected. An interpretation must also seek to not reward fraudulent intentions which may have been held by a party to the contract.

Contract pacta sunt servanda, which translates to “agreements are to be kept.” The essential contract law basis is that contracts cannot violate the rights of either party to the contract.

The main contract law basis is to ensure that the contracts that parties enter into are honored by both parties. Contract law defines any agreement between two parties in which one agrees to provide something to another party in exchange for goods, services, or financial compensation as a contract.

Contract law defines most contracts as being made orally. One of the less understood or appreciated contract law basics is the idea that a purchase in a store for anything, ranging from a pack of gum to a high definition television, represents an oral contract. Contract law only prevents parties from entering into contracts that are trifling, indeterminate, or illegal.

The law states that one who is a principal has a fiduciary duty owed to him by an agent. The agent receives this duty by being appointed by the principal. The purpose behind the appointment is for the agent to carry out special tasks on hand in which they are specialized. 

In return for a fee, the agent must perform his duties to the best of his ability in order to satisfy not only his principal, but also the guidelines of the law. The law that describes the ethical standards and duties of an agent towards his principal are located within the State laws as well as previous court opinions. 

Power of Attorney is granted through the consent of the principal given to the agent. The agent has the ability to be able to perform various duties which do not conflict with the interests of the principal since there is a fiduciary obligation. The agent must abide specifically to the terms set forth in the contract. 

The courts can become involved in enforcing contracts in the event there is a dispute between the parties in a contract. The courts may establish that a contract is enforceable, voidable, unenforceable, or void. The court may also rule that a quasi-contract is in effect. Enforceable contracts, voidable contracts, and unenforceable contracts are all considered examples of valid contracts.

When issuing a judgment, a court may declare a contract void or valid, and may declare the ruling to apply to the contract as a whole or to just a part of the contract. If only a portion is declared void, and the remainder of the contract can still be considered valid, the contract will remain in effect.

If the court rules that the contract is enforceable, it means that the two parties are bound by the terms of the contract to which they had previously agreed. An enforceable contract is a category of a valid contract. Enforceable contracts compel action on behalf of both parties.

A voidable contract is a specific category of enforceable contract. A voidable contract exists when one or both of the parties has the ability to release itself from the contract without a finding of fault. A voidable clause can be specifically inserted during the drafting of a contract by either party.

Any contract involving a minor is automatically considered a voidable contract. A minor may terminate the contract within two year of reaching the age of majority. In a voidable contract only the party with the right to void the contract may file suit for breach of contract.

An unenforceable is a valid contract which a legal body cannot compel one or both of the parties to fulfill the terms of because there is a statute or public policy with which the contract is in conflict.

A void contract is an oxymoron. A contract that is void is a contract which could not exist in the first place. A contract may be declared void by the courts in several circumstances. If one of the parties has been adjudicated to be incompetent, the contract may be declared void. A contract undertaken to commit an illegal act will be declared void as well.

Quasi-contracts are instances where two parties never specifically entered into a contract for the service in question, but a law creates an obligation for one party to provide compensation to another for services rendered.

There are six types of contracts, which can be broken down into three pairs of related terms. The first pair is bilateral and unilateral contracts. Bilateral and unilateral contracts are distinguished by the relationships between the offeror and offeree.

 

 

In a bilateral contract, both parties must agree to the terms of the contract before it goes into effect. In a unilateral contract, the offeror presents terms to the general public. A unilateral contract only becomes binding once a second party seeks to collect on the contract. A unilateral contract is formed if Megan puts up a poster offering a reward for her lost wallet, while a bilateral contract would be formed if Megan offered Rosemary $50 to find her wallet.

 

 

Although formal and informal contracts were both once common, informal contracts have largely replaced formal contracts. A formal contract is any contract which is required by law to take a specific form. An informal contract is any other type of contract.

 

 

An express contract is formed when both parties state what they intend to do while the contract is being formed. An implied-in-fact contract is formed by the actions of the parties. An implied contract does not require any verbal statement by the parties to be put into eff