X. Unenforceable Contracts Unenforceable Contracts Unenforceable Contracts are defined as those contracts that are considered from the word itself, unenforceable meaning these are contracts that cannot be enforced or given effect in a court of law or sued upon by reason of certain defects provided by law until and unless they are cured or ratified according to law unlike rescissible and voidable contracts which are valid and enforceable unless rescinded or annulled. Kinds of Unenforceable Contracts Here are the three types of defects that render contracts unenforceable: a. Contracts that entered into the name of another by one without, or acting in excess of, authority; b. Contracts that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds c. Contracts
Whether the goods were made, processed or altered to the needs or wants of the other party. Misrepresentation A misrepresentation is a falsified information which is used to incline someone to enter into a contract. The contract is then null. Misrepresentation has 3 parts : 1.A statement 2.The statement is a fact which can be confirmed and 3.The statement which encourage the party to sign the
Introduction Undue influence is a vital concept under the contract law. It exists in situations where one party to a contract entered into an agreement with the other party due to the result of pressure exerted to him by that other party. The innocent party who has been subjected to the pressure may then seek an action to set aside the said contract. Undue influence can be said to be developed from the doctrine of duress under the English Common Law. Hence, it can be said that undue influence has certain similarities to the doctrine of duress under the English Common Law, such as rendering a contract to become voidable, except a few distinctive features.
The definition of ‘consideration’ according to the case of Currie v Misa is that consideration may consist either some detriment suffered by one party or some benefit accruing to the other. Consideration is important to a valid contract because an agreement without a valid consideration is not enforceable. The doctrine of consideration is a very uncertain and incoherent area in the law of contract. The doctrine of consideration involves loads of case law that is contradictory with each other, and is subject to a great deal of debate and argument. One area of difficulty is that it is not clear when a person’s performance of, or a promise to perform, a pre-existing obligation can constitute good consideration.
The terminology of the Exclusion clause in a contract is a condition, which aims to preclude one of the parties from accountability or stint the citizen's liability to exact listed terms, conditions, or circumstances. It can be inserted into a contract, which intends to keep out or restrict one's responsibility for breaking a contract or lack of due care (negligence). If somebody sells goods, and some of the products might go wrong. This failure would make him/her accountable to compensate the consumer. For instance, you could be liable if you distribute the products out of the deadline, or if the things are faulty.
The third criterion is the seller’s right to cure the defect. Unless the buyer has a legitimate interest in immediate avoidance of the contract, the seller has a right to cure a defect. As a consequence, even a serious breach, as a rule, will not be fundamental if the seller offers to cure it in terms of Article 48. The fourth and most disputed criterion is the reasonable-use test. The question is whether the buyer can make some other reasonable use of the non-conforming goods.
Hence the problems with resourceful organization and deficiency of comparability remain (Benston et al. 2006). Moreover, the additional concerned stated in the SEC report that is a principles-based approach would result in result of comparability and that controllers may not accepted reliance professional judgements ( SEC, 2003,
The extraordinary standard of Hadley v. Baxendale:-As customarily planned and connected, wanders from both the general guideline of desire harms and the general standards of harms outside the law of contract. If those rules are alluring than the exceptional rule of Hadley v. Baxendale must be undesirable unless it can uphold by some uncommon supports. 7. Eisenberg, Melvin Aron. "The Principle Of Hadley V. Baxendale".
was not sufficient’ Embedded also in the tort of passing off is the need to establish that the goodwill in one’s trade had been misrepresented as that of another trader. Misrepresentation it is said ‘need not be intentional for a passing off action to succeed, and innocence of misrepresentation is no defence.’ The misrepresentation of goodwill therefore could touch on ‘the origin of the goods, their quality, or even the way they are made.’ The misrepresentation ought to be actionable or material. It is of the essence that a consumer is deceived due to such a misrepresentation. The defendant in misrepresenting his goods or services as those of the claimant deceives the consumer. The end result is that the claimant is taken in by such misrepresentation
Other that damages and rescission, there’s also excluding or limiting liability for misrepresentations. Section 19(1) of the Contracts Act that provides that agreements caused by coercion, fraud and misrepresentation are voidable contracts. Thus, in the situations provided, the contract is not voidable if the innocent party was able to ascertain the truth of the matter by exercising ordinary diligence. There have been uncertainties whether the word "fraudulent" applies only to silence thus fraud by silence or it applies to misrepresentation as well thus to fraudulent misrepresentation. A contract is rescinded for misrepresentation because it would not have been entered into but for the misrepresentation.