Npc Contracts Assignment 1

Negotiations are a part of daily life whether we are aware of them occurring or not. In everything that we do there are preferred end results and the end results are likely to affect more than one person. The goal in this however, is to ensure that all parties are equally benefited from the actions and reactions that occur to create that end result. While some dealings are done in a more subtle manner without a great deal of negotiation per say there are other situations that would warrant more vocalized mutually acceptable compromises. The purpose of this paper will be to effectively explain a situation of which required negotiation on the part of both parties that almost all of us have endured and that would be the process of buying a

Answer: Carnack is correct because Willard entered a contract that states that the deposit of $10,000(down payment) as liquidated damage. The contract was reasonable in its damage amount and unlikely to tell when a possible breach was going to happen, therefore the owner can obtain compensation. When Willard breached her contract by not being able to finance the $90,000, Carnack is entitled to obtain a certain amount of money.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

Section 3.2 Authority. The Seller has full corporate power, authority and legal right to execute and deliver, and to perform its obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereunder, and has taken all necessary action to authorize the purchase hereunder on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by the Seller and constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws from time to time in effect, which affect the enforcement of creditors' rights in general and by general principles of equity regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in

As for the money that was to hold the car for Jim and Laura I do believe that was an agreement that Stan did meet. He held that car until the next day when he called Jim and Laura and they informed him that they were no longer interested. Stan did say that it was refundable but there was not a receipt for the money, so it would be hard to prove what the money was for. Getting the deposit back there is no law that requires the dealership to refund the money. What Jim and Laura should have done was inquire to what the dealerships policy was before making a deposit or signing any documents. Or they could have requested something in writing about the deposit being refunded if they choose to change their minds.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

A contract in its essence according to Davitt is “a union of two or more persons, originating in their mutual promises enforceable in law, for the reordering of their relations of title, duty and claim regarding something to be done or not to be done.” Id. at 273. The tricky part concerns what a mutual promise enforceable in law entails. As stated above, there are many difference schools of thought about what fills in the gaps of promises and what is enforceable by law.

C. G. Blake Co. v. W. R. Smith & Son, Ltd., 147 Va. 960 (Va. 1926) "…If by mutuality of obligation is meant, as some courts have suggested, that there must be an undertaking on one side and a consideration on the other, the necessity for its existence cannot be questioned. But if, as other courts have said, mutuality of obligation means that a contract must be binding on both parties so that an action may be maintained by one against the other…”

The second requirement that needs to be fullled by the parties in the contract is the

Finally, if Bob has overreached Salima’s overriding interest, this will enable him to take the property free of Salima’s equitable interest. Section 27 LPA 1925 requires the buyer to pay the purchase price to all of the trustees with a minimum of 2 trustees. Referring to the situation, it is clear that Bob has not overreached Salima’s interest as he has paid only one trustee. Therefore, it should be concluded that Salima has a potential overriding interest that is binding on Bob.

First, is it not clear how Evelyn and Peter could put money in Mathew’s account without clear agreement, secondly, after arbitration by National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), they went further to sign their agreement without the last requirement of a contract that entails legalizing the agreement. It is also ironical how Evelyn and Peter sort compensation behind closed doors of the court yet when NASD ruled in favour of Mathew, they seek court intervention. Also, Evelyn and Peter should pay based on the NASD ruling, not their agreement. This is because they entered another agreement without the completion of the first. The ruled was the first step used so solve the misunderstanding. Further, Mathew can also be penalised for breaching the NASD agreement and compensate, however, both parties can enter into a new agreement. In conclusion, the parties did not have a contract since their first contract was in the process, and they entered another agreement in the same legal terms (Benson, 2001). Thus, the suit filed by Kowalchuk in termination of a contract is not

Younger L.J: in all cases the obligation must, “be such as, in view of the surrounding circumstances, was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time when the transaction was entered into, and was at that time within the grantor’s power to fulfil.”

To answer the given question, we must first understand the formation of an obligation and its different types. The two primary types of obligation that arise in this assignment are unilateral obligations (promises) and contracts. A Unilateral obligation is a responsibility; that exists for one party, not both, to uphold what was agreed on, that will, in turn, benefit the other. It may sometimes profit both. A contract is a legally binding agreement based on consent between two or more individuals, in which an offer is created and accepted. It does not have to be written; it may be verbally made or accepted. The purpose of a contract is to have some form of ownership over what is agreed. It usually begins with an offer given by the

1. For the following types of undertakings, which contract modes are most appropriate? Be prepared to explain the rationale behind your choice.