Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
Exam (elaborations) LA1040
- Vak
- Instelling
Contract Law 2001 question 6
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 6 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 6 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
ahmimahbtmohdgazali
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Bachelor of Laws Contract Law Year 1ZA2001Q6
Fanny aged 17 years agreed with Gertrude and Hildergard to form a pop group
called “ The Glands”. They each agreed to pay £2 000 into a fund to buy a set of
musical instruments and to slit any profits equally between them. They bought the
instruments, rehearsed and advertised their availability to perform at country
house concerts.
a) Ian engaged The Glands to perform at a concert in his stately home but
because of a nearby outbreak of foot and mouth disease the concert was
called off by Ian a day before the concert was scheduled to take place. Ian
required the £ 5 000 which he had paid in advance to be returned. This the
group refused to do.
b) Ken engaged the Glands to perform at his country house and agreed to
pay the group £6 000. Their performance at the concert was so bad that
many of the paying customers who were forced to listen to them began to
slow hand clap before becoming restive and in some cases disruptive.
Ken ordered the group off the stage to protect the property. He refused to
pay the Glands anything relying on what he described as the poor quality
of their performance.
c) Janice engaged the Glands to perform for £ 4 000 at her stately home and
sold
£ 25 000 worth of tickets. On the morning of the concert Hildergard gave
premature birth to twins and therefore was unable to perform at the
concert. Fanny and Gertrude refused to perform unless Janice paid an
extra £ 5 000 for them to “go on”. Because of danger of damage to the
property from angry fans, Janice agreed to pay the additional sum. After
the concert she paid Gertrude £ 4 000 and refused to pay the additional £
5 000.
Advise Ian, Ken and Janice of their contractual liability.
Suggested solution.
The question requires to discuss the contracting parties’ rights and liabilities. The
first issue will be to discuss Fanny’s capacity to contract.
Fanny is 17 years old. Therefore she is a minor - Section 9 of the Family Reform
Act. Generally contracts entered by minors are not contractually binding. The
purpose is to protect minors against their own inexperience and vulnerability.
1
, Bachelor of Laws Contract Law Year 1
They will not be treated like adults. The Law however has made allowance to
protect the rights of the adult contracting party.
On the facts Fanny has a contract of service. Doyle v White City Stadium
emphasizes that if the contract by a minor is oppressive the contract can be set-
aside. In Doyle, the minor had the right to keep his earnings though he had to
follow the rule. In Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sports
Management Ltd, Wayne Rooney was in an oppressive contract. He was 15
years old when he entered into the contract without any legal counsel. The
contract allowed his image to be used by his agent but Rooney was entitled to
only a 20% interest. He also could not be a professional footballer until he was
17 years of age. The court held that this contract was oppressive and was set-
aside.
Fanny on the other hand gets to keep her share of her earnings. She was not
forced to contract. In this way, she was not exploited nor had her options limited.
Therefore it is submitted that the contracts Fanny entered into was binding.
The various contracts entered by The Glands will be considered individually.
a. Ian has a contract of service with The Glands. However, due to the outbreak
of foot and mouth disease nearby, Ian wants to cancel The Glands’ performance.
Since the contract is not yet executed, there is an anticipatory breach. White and
Carter v McGregor says that the damages lie where the breach falls. If so, The
Glands may be able to retain the money. However, Ian may argue that there is a
total failure of consideration. In response, The Glands may argue to say the
contract was terminated at Ian’s option and so they are justified in retaining the
payment. This may also be in sync with Paradine v Jane for observing strictly,
the obligation of the contract.
Another alternative is for Ian to discharge the contract for Frustration. This is to
prove that without default of either party a contractual obligation has become
incapable of being performed because the circumstance in which performance is
called for would render it radically different - Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors
Ltd v Fareham UDC.
Clearly the outbreak is after the contract is made. Therefore it is a supervening
event without inducement of either party. In The Super Servant 2, the
management could have allocated a better vessel for the contract. This, is not
the situation here. Neither was this event foreseen by either party - Amalgamated
Investment & Property v John Walker.
2
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper ahmimahbtmohdgazali. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €10,68. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 57114 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen