A contract of Record encompasses court judgments and personal recognisances. But in this case, they can enforce a court judgment. Their rights will be absorbed in the judgment. And when the judgment is entered on the court’s record it forms a contract of Record between the parties which are in dispute. The Mozarts thought that the items were included in the contract but the Wagners thought otherwise. After hearing both sides the courts would deliver its judgment that the Wagners must provide the appliances or fancy drapes and Persian carpets in the house. Whether they like it or not, they would be under legal obligation to provide the items.
Further, the Mozart had paid an extra $ 15000 which was meant for the appliances, fancy drapes and Persian carpets. This money was not meant for the house since already $ 100,000 had been cleared and the balance ($ 400,000) agreed upon when to be paid. Therefore$15000 amounted to new consideration which ought to have been supported with another fresh consideration. Legally, there must be a something for something or quid pro quo. There is no something for nothing. They Mozarts have then a right to be provided for the items in the house because they had paid extra money on them.
However, on the other hand the Wagners might be justified in not providing for the items by claiming that the consideration that the Mozarts gave amounted to past consideration which is not good consideration. The act of providing the items in the house came after the original contract/promise (of providing the house) had been completed and sealed. In fact the $ 15000 for the appliances was paid on the date of closing. In Remcardle’s case, 1951, the occupants of a house on their own carried out repairs and decoration on the house. On completion of the work, the landlord promised in writing.
500 to be paid to the plaintiffs for the work done. It was held that the contract was unenforceable since the promise to pay was based on past consideration. 5. Both parties in this case i. e. Tom and Nicole do not harbor any capacity to enter into binding contracts. Tom is only 17 years old. Normally a contract in which one or both parties lack capacity for instance due to infancy is considered to be voidable. Tom and Nicole were able to enter into their respective contracts and enforce them as they did but also had a right to avoid the contracts.
Voidable means that the contracts are valid until avoided. Under the Canadian laws the state must protect the interests of those citizens who cannot contract due to incapacity. Tom Gum Drivers may escape liability on the basis of the provision in the agreement with Tom that he was not to engage in any race or contest. They new this could amount to a trading contract which does not bind minors. In Canada, a minor is one who is under 18 years. In Mercantile Union Guarantee Vs Ball (1977), a minor purchased on hire purchase a lorry for use in his haulage contractor business.
It was held that this was a trading contract rather than a contract for necessaries and so the infant was not bound. In conclusion, Top Gun Drivers had singed up a contract with an inexperienced party (minor). They would be responsible for the damages incurred. The Canadian Laws stipulate that a minor is not liable for any liabilities for contracts entered with it unless they are for the supply of necessaries or they are beneficial contracts of service. Again, the Canadian Laws allow a minor to ratify his earlier contract when he was a minor upon attaining the age of majority. Tom therefore has a right to ratify his contract in future.
Contracts with mentally disordered persons are voidable at their option but it must be proved that the other party was aware of his mental condition. The Canadian Laws on contracts with insane persons again allow for their protection by the state against their abuse. An insane person is bound by contracts made during lucid intervals (sober). If a person is temporarily incapable of understanding what he is doing, because of mental illness, the contract would be valid unless: - - He can prove that at the time of entering into the contract he was suffering from mental instability.
- The other party new or ought to have known this disability. The only right/ option available for urban motors is to prove that at the time the contract was made they did not know that Nicole was mentally challenged. And if it can be proved that at the time of the contract, Nicole was Lucid (sober) then she would be responsible for the damages to the car. This is because the contract clearly stipulates that she was to be responsible for the damages above $100. Failure for urban motors to prove the above facts will leave Nicole with the right of not being subjected to any legal suit on the basis of her unfitness.
In the criminal laws of Canada, a mentally disordered party has a legal defense by excuse i. e. by proving that he/she was mentally ill at the time of the contract. This is even upheld in section 16 of the Canadian criminal code.
Emanuel, S. L. (2004): Fundamental of Business Law, 4th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher Emerson R. W (2003): Business Law, 5th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher Jertz, A. , Miller L. R, (2004): Fundamentals of Business Law, 3rd Edn, London, Macmillan Publisher Penrose, R (2005): Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Sydney, Longman Publisher