Thus, Sizemore can recover for the work he has done. 2. On my opinion, the court should not grant the defendant’s requests for judgment on the pleading, and the exculpatory clause may not be enforceable against lily Ledbetter. An exculpatory
The most common kinds of contracts covered by these statutes are contracts between merchants to sell goods, 6 contracts to sell land, contracts of suretyship, and contracts not to be performed within a year. Apart from the form of the contract, if the contract doesn 't have the consideration between the parties, the contract is enforceable. Consideration on the part of both parties is an essential element of a contract. One party’s promise (or consideration) must be bargained for and given in exchange for the other’s act or promise (his consideration). The bargain cannot involve something that is prohibited by law or that is against the best interests of society.
Is past consideration regarded as adequate and sufficient when determining the validity of a contract? B. LAW Doctrine of promissory estoppel In contract law, it is a general rule that where a party to the contract makes a representation in form of a promise to another party relating to the contract, such party is restrained from reneging regardless of nonexistence of consideration (Jill, 2012, p. 148). The doctrine was espoused in Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd  KB 130. It requires of the promisor to honour a unilateral promise he made to the promisee who is not required to pay consideration from in certain circumstances.
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.
Next, is a consideration. The store manager agreed to accept the product, but there was no mention of what Mr. Stevens was going to receive in return. There was also no mention of when and where it was to be shipped. Therefore, this would keep this from being a legal contract if this was not stated when the contract was formed. Contractual capacity is a slight bit different and means that both parties must be within the legal age limit, sound mind and legally able make the binding contract.
CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform. Instead of this, it can tells us which maxims to fit acting morally. CI applies a test on maxims to conduct a necessary condition of their acceptability. This means that when we decide how to act in a given situation and choose the action (with our free, autonomous will), we would want everyone else to act just as we did. The autonomy of this decision leads to personal responsibility, and excludes any other reason to act that was not from our own free will.
is the second necessary condition of a just procedure. The existences of such procedures are a matter of historical contingency. (Hampshire, 2000, p.17, p.27). All humans are subject to the same moral restrictions and that only one conception of the good is finally acceptable. Fairness and justice in procedures are only virtues that can reasonably be considered as setting norms to be universally respected.
The unanticipated events did not make the performance impossible, but rather potentially delayed it to a later date. Reasons For Judgment: In Folia v. Relenski (1997), 14 R.P.R. (3d) 5 (B.C.S.C)., the test for frustration is states: “…The Disruption must be permanent, not temporary or transient. The change must totally affect the nature, meaning, purpose, effect and consequence of the contract so far as concerns either or both parties.” There is no indication that the unanticipated circumstances changed the nature of the contract or made it impossible to perform, and therefore frustrated. There was nothing explicitly stated within the contract that required a timely flight either.
where the offeror makes a promise in return for an act. Ali’s advertisement is considered as a unilateral offer since the contract is based on being automatically accepted without the need for negotiations as he states in the advert. ‘’ the rug will go to the first person who accepts it’’. A similar case is the Carlill v Carbolic