Case Number 1
Alison and Dan
Issues
The following issues characterize the contract between the two parties;
- Breach of contract
- Performance of a contract: Frustration due to vitiating factors
- Terms of a contract; illegality
Rules
The applicable rule, as established in the case of Adams Vs. Lindsay denotes that once parties have signed and agreed to a contract, they are legally expected to fulfill their respective bargains. In the event that one of the parties to the contract fails to meet their bargains, the aggrieved party has the right to initiate civil proceedings on the basis of a breach of contract. In such a case, all that is expected for the court to prove is that the aggrieved party was affected by the failure of the offending party to fulfill their part of the respective deal.
The rule relating to the performance of contracts states that parties to a contract have the responsibility to make sure that they fully complete the mandates as stipulated in the providing written contract. However, in the event that it is confirmed that vitiating factors like the cessation of the subject matter, changes in the law, and acts of God, the contract can be set aside, where the parties are exempted from performing their r3especitve duties, prompting the termination of the contract. As per the terms and elements of a valid contract, illegal contracts are deemed not enforceable in law. As established in the case of A, once a contract is deemed illegal from the legal perspectives that define the operative nature of contracts, the parties are not obligated to perform the duties assigned on their part.
Application
The rule on breach of contract applies to the case between Alison and Dan due to the fact that the parties had entered a signed and unequivocally written contract, which is acceptable in law. In reference to the fact that this was a valid contract, the parties had the mandate to ensure that they met the demands and expectations of the respective legal stances. The rule on breach of the contract suggests that once terms have been agreed and accepted by the parties, all the parties are bound by the contract. In reference to the position that Alison and Dan contracted that Dan would use the property for a period of 10 years for a business that was not specifically defined, it is notable that the parties were expected to adhere to all these demands without fail. Although Dan’s business did not make profits as he anticipated and practically ended up being bankrupt, this did not exempt him from the contract.
As regards the performance of contract rules, it is indicative of highlighting that Dan’s business of lending workers money on a short-term basis was later deemed to be illegal in the year 2015, before the time when the contract was supposed to end. The fact that the business was n longer legal, a case that was not so before, rendered the contract to be void since Dan could not be able to proceed with business as usual.
As defined in the already decided cases and Civil Procedure rules, an illegal contract is not enforceable under law. In this context, the passing of the new rule by the state had rendered his business absolute and illegal. Therefore, it would be impractical for Alison to make claims on a transaction that was already void in the first place. However, assuming that Dan is not entitled to terminate the lease, Dan should pay;
3000*12=36000
36000*10=360,000 dollars- (3000*8)
=360,000-24000
=336,000 dollars
Conclusion
The above illustration demonstrates that there is a breach of contract by Dan, who is supposed to pay Alison the remaining amount that he owed with respect to the ten years lease. However, the presence of a vitiating factor, that is, the frustration of the contract limits its effective performance.
Dan and Steve’s Employer
Issues
The issue, in this case, relates to:
- “privity of contracts.”
- Vicarious liability
Rules
Under the case of Boyle Vs. Boyle, it was decided that only parties to a contract can make claims, perform duties, and even go ahead to demand the enforceability of the contract. On the other hand, the rule relating to vicarious liability states that employers have the mandate to stand in for the mistakes done by their employees in the course of work.
Application
In the present case, Steve entered into a contract with Dan, where the former was loaned 2000 dollars with the agreement that he would pay up 2300 dollars at the end of the month. It was only after this agreement was reached when Dan informed Steve’s employer that he had given Steve a loan to be paid once the payments had been remitted. However, following Steve’s dismissal, Dan was not able to recover the money, hence claimed that Steve’s employer was responsible for the accrued amount. In this particular stance, Steve’s employer was not part of the contract due to the fact that he is a third party. According to the privity of contracts paradigm, only parties to a contract are liable and responsible for the respective actions.
As regards the applicability of vicarious liability in the case, it is evident that Steve was fully employed to the organization, but had ceased working for the employer at the time when the dispute arose. Still, it is not feasible for Dan to make monetary claims on the part of Steve’s employer due to the position that the contract did not involve the business, but private engagements between the parties. It is for this particular reason that Steve’s employer’s situation cannot directly be imputed on the premises of having to pay for non-payment issues with his former employee.
Conclusion
In view of the above case, Steve’s employer is not liable for the loan issued to Steve. In reference to the observation that vicarious liability does not apply in the case, Steve’s employer is not liable for the money and interest accruing as a result of the loan that Dan appropriated to Steve.
Dan and Alpha Bank, Beta Bank, and Gamma Bank
Issues
The overriding issue here is;
- Breach of contract
Rules
The rule pertaining to the breach of contracts suggests that once parties have reached an agreement that is enforceable in law, the violating parties need to compensate the aggrieved party.
Application
In the present legal dispute, Dan entered into a contract with the banks where $100,000 was given to Beta Bank, which he owed $150,000. On the part of Gamma Bank, it was agreed that he was to pay $110,000. The above payments were made in the full settlement of their debts. However, a little way later, the banks filed disputes where they claimed the remaining amounts of money to be paid.
Conclusion
In the above case, the contract between Dan and Alpha Bank, Beta Bank, and Gamma Bank, where the p part payments amounted to full payment was valid, and at no grounds would it be acceptable for the parties to go behind the already established legal positions. Therefore, Alpha Bank, Beta Bank, and Gamma Bank are not entitled to any future payments from Dan as the settlements had been made already by the parties without coercion or intimation, but in consideration of the prevailing pressing issues.