The Legal Issues Of Richard Assessment Answer

Write an answer to the problem-type question related to Richard has a specialist car dealership legal issues with restoration of old jeep.

CASE 1

In the first case, there is a clear issue of mistake that was committed by Emma, who was the manager of ‘Shocks Are Us’. She was mistaken, which was completely unintentional, and conveyed the wrong news to Richard and delivered the wrong product to him. Mistake generally is considered to be a belief that something actually exists, when the reality is that it does not. The aspect of causing a mistake may be regarding an underlying of fundamental fact which may be in the context of the subject matter of a contract (Alquraini, 2011, p.154). The mistake may also arise due to the negligence which can be completely unintentional. In this case mistake out of negligence on the part of Emma can be counted as she interpreted the wrong page of the brochure. However, due to this act of mistake, Richard has been allowed to several claims or rights against ‘Shock Are Us’. He can claim damage that has been caused to the jeep and along with it, the additional charges of compensation resulting from this entire series of transaction. Richard may also take only the damages that his jeep had endured and established a new transaction with the shop from where he had purchased the tools, forgoing his entire compensation charge, which is completely upon the discreet of Richard. The remedy as of claiming damages shall be so claimed under the law of tort where loss or damages are suffered by one party due to the negligent act of the other. In such context, whether the negligence was done out of complete innocence or with sufficient intention to deceive or cause harm or loss, is completely immaterial.

CASE 2

In this instant case, there was already a contract between Richard and George in the form of a lease which initiated an annual increase of the lease amount every year. Upon the request of Richard owing to some financial problems of the same and on the request of Richard to forgo the annual hike of the lease amount, George made a verbal agreement that he would not make the increment that year. However, no written agreement was signed on that behalf, neither was any documentation framed in that same aspect.  The alterations which were agreed by George so as to forgo the annual increment for that particular year, was an oral contract and was not written and registered. As a lease agreement Is always a registered document and agreement, this alteration was also required to be made in the same manner thorough a registered deed, and only then it could have been made enforceable in the court (Bhailís & Flynn, 2017, p.12). An oral agreement in this context is absolutely vague and unenforceable. Thus, the agreement which is entirely based on verbal conversations, cannot be enforced in the court (Sloan, 2017, p.72)  and Richard has no remedy available against Georgein this instant case, but to pay the entire lease amount without adding any reduction to its effect.

CASE 3

The third case referred is a case of infringement or violation of the contract. The mode of communication in this aspect was legal, through written words i.e. by e mail.  There was a clear offer to sell on the side of Richards, and an acceptance was made from the side of Tom. Tom at first tried to negotiate the purchase amount to which Richard did not give his assent. However, later,   Tom agreed to take the car at the price offered by Richard. There was a clear communication of this changed intention of Tom as he had mailed Richard that he intends to buy the car at the price stated by Richard. However, when Richard went to the house of Tom, he refused to accept the car and to pay money for it. This is a lacuna on the part of Tom as he should have communicated his changed intent of not purchasing the car thus putting an end to the contract (Sloan, 2018, p.81). But his failure to so communicate it to Richards makes the agreement end with the fact that Tom was willing to purchase the car. Richard in this context has certain remedies, to claim compensation for the trouble he had in bringing the car to the place of tom and also to claim any compensation which he had at all faced because of entering into the contract with Tom. For example, the loss if he had denied the sale of the car to any other person as he knew that it was already taken or booked by Tom. However, he has to prove this and such compensation is supposed to be minimal. Lastly, both Tom and Richard have another option to end the earlier contract, and entering into a new contract under the same or different terms and conditions (Ariffin, 2014, p.113). In this case however, Richard cannot claim the compensation charges against Tom.

CASE 4

There was a fault in expressing the terms and the agreements of the contract between Martin and Richard. Martin said that he needs the car but does not mention that the car is needed in the interests of his friend. Had he intimated Richards earlier about the fact that the car is neede for his friend, the proper charges would have been taken from him by Richards. As the conveyance of the terms and conditions were not aptly communicated the laches fall on the part of Martin and not in the part of Richards, who has thus faced loss due to the improper communications made by Martin. Thus martin in the instant case stands as the defaulter in the performance of the contract and hence holds the position to pay the remuneration or the compensation that has been suffered by Richards due to the fault of Martin for not communicating the matters aptly. 

References