Foundations of the Law Obligation (Coursework Sample)

Foundations of the Law Obligation
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Part 1: Contract Law
Introduction
Contract law establishes legal relationships among members to ensure the fulfillment of obligations. A contract has four essential elements that should be evident when making a contract. The elements include offer and acceptance, consideration, and intention to make a contract. However, the issue in George's scenario regards a promise. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to analyse the contract terms of a promise and whether it is enforceable.
Analysis of a Promise
A promise refers to the “communication of an intention to undertake an obligation.” A contract comprises a promise made in a way the law acknowledges as “sufficient to undertake a legally binding obligation.” However, further justification is needed for why a promise should be enforced as a contract. The first justification is a reasonable expectation, which is based on a theory that contracts ought to be enforced since they create reasonable expectations. Hence, a promisor must fulfill the promise or reimburse the promisee by paying monetary equal to the performance. Therefore, the promisee’s reasonable expectation is protected under contract law. The court assesses the expectation by determining what a reasonable person under the circumstance should have done since the promisor is not to meet unreasonable expectations. There are psychological reasons for protecting reasonable expectations. The promisee relies on the promise that it will be performed; and thus when a promisee undertakes a legal obligation, it confers aright on the promisee to have the promise performed. However, a promise that is only “morally binding does not give a promisee a legally enforceable right to performance.”[Fred, Charles. Contract as Promise: A Theory of Contractual Obligation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1981.] [Ibid pg 23] [Ibid pg 25] [Valente Dena. Enacting Promises: Consideration and Intention in the Law of Contract: A dissertation for Bachelors of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago, 2010.] [Valente Dena. Enacting Promises: Consideration and Intention in the Law of Contract: A dissertation for Bachelors of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago, 2010. 25]
In the scenario, Preston Plumbers cannot complete the work within the agreed time because some of its staff being on sick-off, and a global shortage has resulted in struggle to access building materials. Johnson, the managing director, offers extra payment of $15000 if Preston finishes the work within the agreed time. It is reasonable that Preston engages other individuals' services. Also, extra costs are used to access materials because of the shortage. Preston is taking these steps placing reliance on Johnson's promise to pay the extra $15000. Hence, the promise creates a reasonable expectation relied on by Preston, thus resulting in a legally enforceable right for the promise to be performed by Johnson.
Another important factor in a promise is a consideration. In Anton’s Trawling Co Ltd v Smith, the court held that “Consideration is a valuable signal that the parties intend to be bound by their agreement, unlike ending it there.” Similarly, in Dickson v Dodds, Mr. Dodds had made a promise to keep his offer to sell to Mr. Dickson the property on Friday at the agreed time. On determination, the court established that the promise was unenforceable since Mr. Dickson had not given his consideration. In line with the court's decision regarding consideration, it can be concluded since Johnson gave consideration of $15000, the promise made is enforceable. Additionally, the issue of consideration as to contract modifications was determined in Williams's v Roffey Bros & Nicolls (Contractors) Ltd. The case concerned a subcontractor to do carpentry work. The initially agreed price was insufficient to complete the work; thus, the plaintiff run short of finances to finish the work. To avoid incurring a penalty for late completion, the defendant offered an additional pay to have the work completed. The court's verdict was that if a promisor obtains a benefit or prevents a disadvantage, it is regarded as sufficient consideration. Therefore, prevention to incur a loss is considered as sufficient consideration for James Johnson to keep the enforceable promise.[Anton’s Trawling Co Ltd v. Smith [2003] 2 NZLR 23] [Dickson v. Dodds [1875-76] LR 44 Ch D 463 at 472] [William’s v. Roffey Bros & Nicols (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1] [Ibid]
Conclusion
A promise regards communication of an intention to fulfill obligations. In order for a promise to be enforced, certain justifications must be made. The first justification is a reasonable expectation for the promise to be fulfilled where the court considers what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstance. Following this, a promisee's reliance on the promise grants them a right to have the promise legally fulfilled if the expectation is not unreasonable. The aspect of consideration is significant when determining the enforceability of a promisee. As determined by courts, consideration is the value for fulfilling the work. Also, consideration is deemed sufficient for a promisor to benefit or avoid a disadvantage, as was determined in William's v Roffey Bros & Nicolls (Contractors) Ltd.
Part 2: Tort Law
Introduction
Tort law regards acts or omissions save for breach of contract which results in harming another person, thus, amounting to a civil wrong that imposes liability. Tortuous actions are divided into three: strict liability, intentional torts, and negligence actions. Their elements slightly differ from each other. Courts, in determining liability in negligence suits, examine the level of standard of care taken by the defendant. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to critically analyse how courts in negligence suits assess the standard of care. The analysis is in line with Lord Hoffman's words in Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46.[Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47]
Negligence Claims
Negligence suits are the most frequent tort actions. Negligence takes place when the wrongdoer carelessly harms another person. For a negligence suit to be successful, the court has to examine four elements. First is the duty of care, where a person has an obligation to take precautions to ensure harm is not accessioned to others. For instance, a cleaner in an institution has a duty of care to ensure that the floor of the building is clean and dry so that others are not affected because of their duty. The second element is a breach, where a plaintiff ought to establish that the defendant breached their duty. For instance, the cleaner failed to indicate that the floor was wet. The third element is causation, which takes two forms, actual and proximate cause. Actual means the defendant directly caused the breach. For instance, but for the cleaner's failure to indicate the floor was wet, the plaintiff would not have fallen and harmed themselves. Lastly is harm, which is linked to causation. That is, the plaintiff sustained the injury after sliding and falling on the wet floor.[Muhametaj Griselda. Introduction of the Tort of Negligence in the UK Legislation and Jurisprudence. Global Journal of Politics and Law Research: Volume 5. No. 6, pp 29-33, 2017] [Plunket James. The Duty of Care in Negligence. Hart Publishing: Oxford and Portland Oregon, 2018]
Standard of Care
Standard of care refers to the degree of care, including caution, attention, prudence, and watchfulness that a reasonable person is to exercise in the given circumstance. Failure to meet the standard the person is held liable for negligence. The landmark case for duty and standard of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson by Lord Atkin, who stated that one should take reasonable care to avoid actions or omissions that one reasonably foresees will likely harm their neighbour. In Bolam v Friern Hospital, a professional negligence case, the court held that the standard of care should be that of "reasonable skill and care." The standard ca