Question

question1

What would be the appropriate remedy in each of the following breaches of contract? Your answer should state the:

• Most likely remedy and the specific area e.g. 1) equitable remedy – specific performance or e.g. 2) common law damages – reliance losses; plus
• Best supporting case.

Each part is worth 2.5 marks

1. Mary breaches her contract to play for the Jets football team after having a fight with the team captain. Contrary to a clause in her contract she starts playing with another team in the same competition.

2. Fred and Jane read a brochure about a seaside resort offering a one-week holiday package that includes scuba diving and whale watching. They book a package only to find, when they arrive, that the scuba tanks have been declared unsafe and cannot be used and the boat used for whale watching has been put on dry dock for its annual maintenance inspection, repair, and keel painting.

3. Fiona purchases a Commodore after the seller had promised that there was absolutely no rust. She would not have entered the contract had she known about the rust.

4. Emma enters into an oral agreement with Fred where he agrees to build her a house for $500,000. Fred builds the house but Emma refuses to pay. The agreement was made in a state where building contracts of this type have to be in writing.

Answer 1

Case Study	Explanation
a. Mary breaches her contract to play for the Jets football team after having a fight with the team captain. Contrary to a clause in her contract she starts playing with another team in the same competition.	As in these contract, non- competent clasuse always been there. It not applicable till the contract is valid but it is always extended over the period from where the contract ends. Hence, Mary simply breaches the contract by joining competitors team in the same tournament. This may casue the ban over the specific period to play within the team or joining other club.
a. Fred and Jane read a brochure about a seaside resort offering a one-week holiday package that includes scuba diving and whale watching. They book a package only to find, when they arrive, that the scuba tanks have been declared unsafe and cannot be used and the boat used for whale watching has been put on dry dock for its annual maintenance inspection, repair, and keel painting.	As per booking, promises for scuba diving and whale watching as services for attracting customers. But on the contrary none of the both services are been there. Hence Fred and Jane can sue the seaside resort for not disclosing the facts earlier and book the same on false advertisement grounds. As per law, Seaside are obliged to give the specific services or compensate over the non- performance of specific performance apart from normal features.
a. Fiona purchases a Commodore after the seller had promised that there was absolutely no rust. She would not have entered the contract had she known about the rust.	Here, purchases on the ground of promises made by the seller about the quality of the product. Falsely not enetered into contract knowing the facts about the rust. Simply promising orally and not enetered into contract, fiona will hold full right to return the goods back to the seller on identification of products not as per quality marks require. Secondly not entered into formal contract can never take the right of purchasers to compensate over the non qualitative product. as per law, being invoice or PO is itself a contract to provide the goods as per the required quality of the fiona. hence seller is obliged to compensate over providing non qualitative product.
a. Emma enters into an oral agreement with Fred where he agrees to build her a house for $500,000. Fred builds the house but Emma refuses to pay. The agreement was made in a state where building contracts of this type have to be in writing.	Here, Entering into oral contract is itself a type of contract. Bbut as per the facts of the area, any contract is stands valid if it is made as per the law of the land, so here netering into oral contract is itself null and void and not enforceable in law. So, here, Emma is justifiable in refuseing to pay $ 500000 and performance pertaing to such oral agreement will not hold appropriate in the right of Emma, it means emma can never hold her right ove the property.