When the defendant’s wrong does not fit in any of these pigeon holes he is said to have committed no tort. Hence this theory of Salmond is also known as pigeon hole theory. However the theory of pigeon hole has been criticized by the latter writers as they feel this theory, if accepted, will put an end to the growth and evolution of the new categories of liability in tort and the Courts could be prevented from identifying any new torts based on the violation of the legal rights of a person. Torts are infinitely various and not limited and confined. The novelty of claim may arise and Court may recognize a novel claim.
Based on the quotation above, he tries to voice up his opinion and point of view regarding the doctrine of privity. The literal meaning to the above quotation is the rebuttal towards the doctrine of privity is usually unquestionable statements. The doctrine of privity in contract as asserted by Robert Flannigan is complete and fair to be exercised by every country. The doctrine of privity of contract in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to contract. The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages in case of breach.
Thus, as far as primary rules are concerned, Hart argues that there is a need for certainty, so that these rules can be applied by general public without any official guidance. There are a number of defenders of rule of law who have emphasized the need for the same kind of safety. He also discusses clarity as to which norms are to be declared as law. Hart had earlier argued that rule of recognition serves a very important purpose in peoples’ understanding of which rules can be secretively enforced by the society. However, in the Postscipt of his book, the Concept of Law, he says that the need for certainty is not a requisite condition.
Specific performance is an extraordinary equitable remedy that compels a party to execute a contract accordingly to the precise terms agreed upon or to execute it substantially so that, under the circumstances, justice, will be done between the parties. Specific performance grants the Plaintiff what he actually bargained in the contract rather than damages (pecuniary compensation for loss or injury incurred through the unlawful conduct of another) for not receiving it. This Specific Performance is an equitable rather than legal remedy. By compelling the parties to perform exactly what they had agreed to perform. Specific Performance can be granted only by the court in the exercise of its equity powers, subsequent to a determination of whether a valid contract can be enforced exist and an evaluation of the relief sought.
In Section 190 states that “When an agent, without power, committed acts or conduct obligations to third parties, on behalf of the principal, the principal is bound by the acts or obligations if he is with words or behavior, encourage third party believes that the actions and the bonds are within the jurisdiction of the agency”. This situation makes the third party loss while the agent is not a principal’s agent. Therefore, the principal is stopped (estoppel) from denying the existence of his agent. Besides that, agency by estoppel may not arise if there is only involve actions of one agent. For example, if A tells B in the presence of X that he is X’s agent and X does not deny this statement.
(2) Any term will be considered not negotiated if it was put in advance so the customer did not have the chance to understand the core of the term. (3) in spite of the term or the aspect is been negotiated this act will apply to the rest of the contract if the evaluation of the term shows that it was made in advance type of contract. (4) the seller will be accountable to prove that any term or condition is individauly negotiated. assessment (1) without bayous to the regulation 12, the contract term will be assessed consideration the nature of the goods which the contract was made to and the time of the contract and all the conditions involved in the contract . 2) if the contract was put in an understandable language, the assessment of fairness will not include :- (a) the main subject of the contract or, (b) the sufficiency of the price or to the adequacy of the price or compensation.
According to an earlier case Commercial Solvent, the substance of Art.82 is reiterated that abuse of dominant position is not established solely on dominant position, but on certain risk of harm. It reminds the wording “abuse” in Art. 82. In United Brands case, the case law provides protecting legitimate commercial interests is possible but it should be done on a proportionate ground given an objective justification; and the application of this interpretation in the case is that undertaking cannot, therefore, stop supplying an order in no way out of the ordinary. In BP case, the same law interpretation is applied, but this time objective necessity was found.
There is no legal commitment until a contract has been formed and either party may change their mind and withdraw from the negotiations. But the question now is can Ann now terminate the offer through the Fax? Under communication by the postal rule, the offer has been accepted by Ann and contract formed. However, in the case of James and Ann it can be argued that although the post by Ann constitute acceptance, James did not stipulates the method of communication of acceptance. The method used by the offeree in this case, Ann is not less advantageous to the offeror.
Also, they will not be responsible for the delay because the burden of uncertainty of waiting is with the offeror. One thing about the postal rule needs to be understood- the burden of its authority can easily be changed, or completely waved off by the offeror in the terms of the offer. Also, a certain requirement in the kind of communication of acceptance that the offeror wants needs to be met by the acceptor. Such a specified requirement may only be replaced if it does not put the offeror at a disadvantageous position. For example, an email is interchangeable with a telephonic conversation.
By failure to object to the presentation of oral evidences to prove the contract which amounts to a waiver and makes the contract as binding as if it has been reduced to writing. 2. By acceptance of benefits under the contract where in the contract weren’t be able to be executed that’s why Statute does not