CONTRACT LAW ESSAY Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

CONTRACT LAW - Essay Example In the case of Mark and JETS, it can be established that Mark desired and needed the services offered by JETS, specifically, the provisions that (d) a Hamletjet 1000 must be available, and one of a list of designated pilots must be on call, 24 hours a day; (e) all pilots will have a jet at the ready for clients’ use within 30 minutes of receiving a request from a client. Since the stipulations were clear, it is assumed that the offered services are vital and strictly followed by both parties and that any violation of the stipulation would render breach of contract or even economic loss on the part of Mark. In the instance that Mark needed a Hamletjet in February 11, and that immediately informed JETS about this need was part and covered by the contract. It is expected that in 30 minutes, the Hamletjet will be available for Mark. Failure of the JETS to provide a transport for Mark is a breach of the stipulations. Inducing Breach of Contract Under the doctrine of substantial per formance, Lord Mansfield indicated that in common law, it is a term in the contract that creates an obligation to be performed by one party to the contract, and subsequently, further obligation arises on the side of the other party (The Modern Law Review, 1975). The condition upon which the entire contract, or as a whole, becomes dependent on the conditions indicated on the contract, of which two had been violated by JETS in the disadvantage of Mark. It should be noted that no further agreement was taken after the failure to deliver on the part of JETS. Had the two parties – Mark and JETS – met and discussed to create a new agreement, the case could have taken the route of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co., of which Lord Cairns stated that: It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed, that if parties, who have entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results, afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them when it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties (Hughes v Metropolitan Railway, 1877). Lord O’Hagan, on the same case mentioned, noted the failure of one party to oblige upon the agreement of both parties, to which, he commented, â€Å"They entered into a covenant: and if they have failed to fulfil their undertaking they must abide the results, however onerous, unless the circumstances excuse their default in the view of a Court of Equity. But if they acted, or failed to act, through a mistake induced by the conduct of the Plaintiff: if they were misled by it into the belief that his strict legal right was abandoned or suspen ded for the time, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the forfeiture which was so accomplished.† In Lumley v Gye, it had been ruled out that liability depended upon the contracting party having committed an