role play business

Standard

role play business;

You are the CEO of Big Beans Co. You are negotiating with the MD of QuickTrucks.

You want Quick Trucks to deliver your beans to the supermarket at a rate of EUR 1 000 per tonne. However, you are willing to pay up to EUR 1 300.

You will need at least 200 tonnes to be delivered every 6 months.

You want the contract to last 6 months but you are prepared to agree up to 12 months.

The contract is to start 23 February. Try to get him or her to agree to this date.

======================

You are the MD of Far East Fast which is an airline. You are negotiating with Jump Jet Airlines.

You fly from Osaka to San Francisco. Your rival airline also flies this route. You try to persuade them to give up this route. If they do you will pay them JPY 1 billion a year. You are willing to receive the equivalent in RMB.

Try to get a contract for 3 years or more.

Jump Jet might ask you to exchange another route instead such as to Tokyo to Shanghai. You would be willing to agree but only in return for JPY 2 billion per annum.

You do not have to agree on both routes. You might agree on one route but not another.

Discuss a code share on the Shenzhen to Seoul route. You would agree to a codeshare if Jump Jet will let you fly the routes and you will get 85% of the profit.

You want the right to rescind the contract within 2 months if it is not working for you.

=================

13.1 frustration. contract law

Standard

13.1

why do you think that mckendrick and poole deal with doctrine of frustration in chapters on mistake?

because they bleed into each other.

==================

13.2

on monday nathalie arranges for her car to be serviced at phil’s garage on the following friday. Jamie the mechanic who normally carries out the servive is taken ill on thurs and is not in on fri. will the contract be frustrated?

No.

==============

13.3

Monday nathalie arrnages for hair to be styled at salon. jamies usualy does it. he is ill on thurs and unavailable on fri is contracted frustrated>/?

Only if Jamies being the stylist was a term.

==================

13.4

aaron has booked to attend an even at highplace hall. event is to include tour of grounds in hall followed by concert with famous pianist. is contract frustrated if

a. day before evnt highplace suffers fire and is damage . grounds are still opne so meal and concert cannot take place.

yes because contract must now be radically reduced in scope.

b. on day before concert pianist breaks wrist and concert cannot play.

yes

=========================

13.5

read the case of J Lauritzen As v Wijsmuller BV , the super servant number two 1990. why is this case seen as extending rather than simply applying the principle established in maritime national fish v ocean trawlers?

wijsmuller was to transport lauritzen’s rig from Japan to holland. a barg was to be used. super servant 1 or 2. super servant 1 was being used on another job. number 2 was to be used. super servant 2 then sank before rig could be taken on board. another vessel was used by wijsmuller to transport rig under a LATER agreement

was contract frustrated?

no it was not since the contract allowed wijsmuller to use another vessel

why has it been criticised?

==========================

13.6

contract law. performance and breach. 12.1

Standard

12.1 magic mountain ltd is buyng a mt on which it plans to develop a ski resort. contract for purchase needs tenders payment at 5 pm on 3 december at office

on 3 december magic moutain sends rep with cheque in time to reach office. bomb scare. rep arrives 3 hours late because of it. has repudiatory breach occurred?

would it have occurred if rep had reached office at 5.10?

would the result have been any different if moutain magic ltd called the offce to tell about bomb scare delay?

if this is strict liability then this is repudiatory breach.

if he arrived 10 mins late then this might be de minimis

calling in would probably not have made a difference.

==============================

12.2

in what circs will a party be held to have affirmed a contract? to what extent is a party’s election to terminate or affirm constrained by considerations such as reasonableness of his decision or conduct?

if he carries on performing and accepting the same despite knowing of breach

if the breach is not of a condition or important innominate term he cannot terminate. if the the breach is de minimis he cannot terminate as it would be unreasonableness. if he has not effective choice then non-termination can still be held not to be affirmation.

===================

12.3

what is the importance to the innocent party of determining the nature of the term breached by the other party?

v important. warranties can be breached without giving right to terminate.

============

12.4

in the hounslow Megarry J said that the two qualifications mentioned by lord reid in white and carter are necessarily part of the ratio decidendi of the white and carter case. is this statement correct?

hounslow LBC v twickenham garden development. 1971

hounslow entered contract with the other party to build houses. twickenham garden development given site for 4 years . architect for LBC was unhappy with progress. LBC terminated contract

Twickenahm garden development said termination was invlaid and continued building. T G D said they had licence to remain on land and that was separate to contract. T G D said LBC had not abided by natural justice and allowed T GD to be heard

the court found for T G D

there was an implied duty not to revoke licence whilst contract period was ongoing. licence was contractual

natural justice does not apply to notice periods under contract.

plaintiff did not demonstrate contract was vlaidly terminated.

white and carter v ,acgregor 1961

3 year contract to display adverts for macgregor on bins. contract due to expire. macgregor’s sales manager then renewed it. later that day macgregor found out and said that the sales manager had no authority to renew contract.

white and carter refeused to cancel as requested. they displayed ads and charged money

lords ruled that white and carter won. contract was valid. this was a debt. mitigation rule had no application this is not a discretionary remedy

==========================

12.5

could the claimant insist on performing after the defendant had repudiated the contract if he knew that all his effort and expenditure would simply be wasted?

clea shipping v Bulk Oil 1984

this is the alaskan trader. 24 month charterparty. engine breakdown after a year. repair would take months. charterers said they had no need for the vessel. owners repaired it and insisted that the contract carry on.

the ruling was that the owners had no legit interest in continuing the contract. they had done so just for more money.

defendants had behaved badly. admitted liability at last possible moment. they ahd not co operated

claimants were granted equitable and statutory rights.

there is a limit on an innocent party’s right to ignore repudiation of a contract.

so the claimants won. bulk oil int had to pay. The owners had been wrong to try to continue the contract.

===========

12.6

what are the risks involved in not accepting an anticipatory repudiation?

if you do not and you carry on performing you might not get paid for it.

================================

  1. when a party has a right to terminate a contract for breach is far from clear and should be clarified.

2. rhonda is a plumber . she contracts with simon to replace plumbing for 10 K. work must be completed by deccember for Xmas bookings. in November she has not begun work. simon rings office and finds she is out on another job. simon realises correctly that rhonda cannot do work. he tells rhonda not to bother.

simon hires amanda to do plumbing. he will pay 15 000. rhonda knows she cannot do both jobs. stops other jobs. goes to do simon s job because it is more money. simon’s staff allow rhonda in to do work when simon is away. they refuse to allow amanda in

rhonda does work and wants 10 000. amanda sends bill for 15 000

rhonda did not after repudiation. this is like alaskan trader. she should not have. she will get nothing

amanda – there was anticipatory breach by simon’s staff in error. this might be seen as mistake or frustration. she gave no consideration . simon might get away with not paying her.

===============================

israel and india ========

Standard

jews of india . jewish school kolkata

cochi jews. mumbai. baghdadi

palestine. no recognition of israel

mrs gandhi. yasser arafat. muslims. anti colonialism. USSR. armenia.

diplomatic relations

anti islamism. pakistan. mossad.

investment. israelis after army. backpakcers. cannabis

hebrew on menu.

hindu nationalisms. anti muslim.

=============================

more more words

Standard

lustrum. five years

lustration – purification ceremony

limerence. romantic infatuation

prosopopeia. personifyiny inanimate objects.

alembic. anything that transforms. purifies or refines

oeillade – amorous glance

lunisolar

galimatias – incomprehenisble talk.

diegetic – happening in the world of the story

fantabulous – fantastic

flocculent – of trufts of wool

belly wash – horrid drink

terrene – of the earth

umbrageous – easily takes offence

aoristic – indefitinte

procellous stormy as the sea

fistic of boxing

MM baby 2 ===================

Standard

publicuty shy woman. shrinking iolet. wallflower. photos. realse valentine’s day

2 children max. less sympathy than most.

had she said nothing nws would have come out.

right to privacy. financial. medical. photos where she has resomable excepctation of rpivacy.

timid. diffident. reticent. cat fot her tongue

if you live by media you die by media

cannot invite them in and tell them to get out. oprah.

legal action. won a case. topless Kate M. 2013.

interference. queen vets legisaltion. uniqye constitutional role. touches and concernes crowns. solicitude. right to be infore dadvice nd warn. bagehot.

princes chrles scrutines bills that would allow his tenants to buy their houses

unwarrnated intruston into legisaltive process.

undemocratic . conscernng.

=====================

never forgotten shalt thou be

Standard

time ever flowing bids us be doing dear mother eton far from thee.

hearts growing older lover never colder never forgotten never forgotten shalt thou be

eastward and westward far divided northwaed and southward. go must we

==========

life ‘s duties call us where e’er befall us life must be . high lot or lowly. weal or woe.

brother with brother. thou our mother, united we will go.

for home and kinsfolk for old comrades for our dear country

========

old eton faces old eton places thou we be parted far away. seen ever clearly loved ever dearly. shall then be with us as today

eah hall familiar.each dear old custom. each comrade loyal to our school.

===========

refrain

what we are leaving others receiving children of eton.

when we are gone still forward straining. fresh honour gaining.

keep the torch burning hand it on. brother with brother.

thou our dear mother. in thee united thus sing we.

hearts growing older, love never colder

never forgotten, never forgotten shalt thou be

third party rights. contract law

Standard

11.1

in his speech in scruttons ltd v midland silocones ltd 1962 lord reid stated that the argument that the carriers had acted as the stevedore’s agent in obtaining for them were an exemption clause could be successful if a number of conditions were met. what are these conditions? were they met in the case before him?

===================

scruttons unloading ship

contract there was limitation of liabiluty of £179 per box.

boxes daage by stevedores. stevedores under contract with shipping company and had exclusion clause

midlands did not know of this

it seemed stevedores could not be exempted since there wa sno privity of contract

no bailment was found

. conditions. 1 bill of lading makes it clear that stevedores are intended to be proected by provisions of limitation of liability

2. bill of lading makes it clear he the carrier is acting as an agent for the stevedoresand provisions apply to stevedores

3. carrier has authority of stevedore to do that or there is later ratification by stevedore

4. any difficulty about moving from stevedore was overcome.

to affect the consignee it would need to be proven that Bill of LadinG aCT applied

I guess it did not operate. so onerous.

===================

11.2

consider the arguments in favour of privity of contract and arguments against

contracts are between contracting parties. wrong for benefits or burdens to pass

sometimes it is logical that these pass. one acts for another.

===============

11.3

why had privity of contract survived for so long?

because of consideration and precedent

======================

p 175

self assessment

  1. when is a third party given a right to enforce a term of a contract?

where a contaract says that he can

where a contract confers a benefot on him and there is no reason to stop him asserting that right.

Contracts rights of third parties act 1999.

2. what rights are given to a third party?

to enjoy benefits conferred by the contract. however, some of these benefits do not give him the right to seek a remedy. the rights only arise if the contract it performed.

right not to have a contract varied to his disbenefit. right to an exclusion of liability in some circs.

3. what defences are available to the promisee in an action brought by the third party?

if the promisee recovers money from the promisor then the promisee can keep what he deserves before hading some on to the third party.

4. to what extent can the parties to the contract vary or rescind the contract?

to an extent that it does not harm the third party. However, the contractors can exclude operation of the contracts rights of third parties act.

5. how can the parties to a contract exclude the rights of a third party?

they can state this in the contract.

============

11.4

what is the relationship between the 1999 act and the common law with regard to the provision of exceptions to privity?

common law was fairly strict. privity prevented third parties having many assertable rights under a contract.

1999 act

common law allowed a contractor to sue the other contract for non performance on a promise to beneft a third party.

there can be a performance interest for one of the parties in seeing that the contract is performed to benefit a third party

specific performance can be ordered

jackson v horizon holidays. holiday booked. one who booked holiday got compensation on behalf of family

there was an ability under cmmon law for a contractor to recover damages on behalf of third party

the 1999 act extended common law rights

============

11.5

is it likely that courts will accept a performance interest on the part of the promisee and allow the promisee to recover substantial damages for a breach which deprives the third party of his intended benefit?

no. unlikely.

================

11.6

what conditions must be met in order for the exemption clause to protect the third party throgh the eurymedon device?

A must make a contract with B and A offers immunity to C through B.

the eurymedon. new zealand shipping v scatherwaite. 1975

==============

11.7

what consideration was provided by C to A for the contract of immunity in eurymedon?

the consideration was the service.

===================

11.8

A contracts with B for B to carry goods between dover and calais by sea. include d in this contract is a clause that exempts B and B ;s agent employees and subcontractors from liability for any damage howsoever caused. B contracts with C for C to unload the ship. the ship carries several cargoes and besides A goods. in unloading goods belong to Z, C accidentally destroys A’s goods. what advice do you give to C as to his liability for the damages?

C is not liable. he is exampted.

========================

11.9

would the widow in red schebsma have been better off if there had been a trust?

schebsman employed. 1940 to receive payments for loss of employment. if he died before all 6 payments then rest to go to wife or daughter

he died in may 1942. he had been declared bankrupt in march 1942

trustee in bankruptcy said that the payments were part of estate

trustee said he could take the payments from the widow. trustee was in the same position as the deceased – the legal pwner.

the widow lost. she would have been better off with a trust.

=================

b. in what way if at all does the decision in beswick and beswick form an exception to privity?

1967. specific performance was ordered. uncle and nephew. nephew bought business from dying uncle. term that nephew had to pay uncle ‘s wdidow money.

old man died. nephew reneged on promise. court held that the term was valid. it was an excption to privity. the widow was the administratrix of her husband’s estate.

c. how would the contracts rights of third parties act 1999 affect the decison in new zealand shippin v AM sattherwaite?

it probably would not. the third parties were protected by te Himalaya Clause in the bill of lading. so outcome would be the same. they would nt have had to satisfy lord reid’s quatripartite test

the contract was unilateral. it was activated by unloading the drill said the lords, exemption in bill of lading

d. how would the contracts rights of third parties act affect beswick v beswick?

it would make it even easier for the widow.

e. following the enacement of the 1999 act is it likely courts will continue to devise exceptions to the doctrine of privity?

maybe privity has been considerably weakened w. will not get much weaker.

================

self assessment questions

  1. what are the two aspects of the doctrine of privity?

only a party to a contract can sue on it.

a third party cannot be obliged to do anything by a contract.

2. name three devices used in common law to give enforceable benefots to third parties?

agency. collateral contracts. trusts. agency and assignment. land law. third party insurance. contracts for benefit of a group.

3. what is the main test of whether third parties should be given rights under contract?

is it just to do so?

4. in relation to the doctrine of privity what is a performance interest?

if a party would be benefited by a contract being performed.

5. outline eurymedon case and when the device created in this decision can be utilised by contracting parties?

Eurymedon was a ship. New Zealand Shipping corpm v satterherwaite 1975

drilling machine shipped from liverpool to NZ. bill of lading limitd liability for contractors and their agents. this is a Himalaya clause.

carrier co was subsidiary of stevedore co that unloaded drill. negligence stevedores damaged drill whilst unloading.

stevedores claimed limitation of liability

lords said that stevedores could rely on the limitation

lord reid test. 1. bill of lading said limitation applied to agents.

2. bill of lading said this applied to stevedores

3. carrier has authority from stevedores

4. difficulties about consideration were overcome

bill of lading was a unilateral contract.

companies can use a himalaya clause.

———————

6. can a contract impose a liability on a third party?

No.

=========================

  1. last year C entered employment of D for a period of 6 years fixed. his contract said if he died before the end of 6 years then D would pay his widow 2 000 for three years. C died in January this year but D refused topay widow.

The wdow is executric and can recover funds. contract intended to benefit her.

2. F lives alone in his house. house suffers badly from damp. living conditions are unpleasant. but F does not have money to pay for damp proofing. his daughter G offers to pay for damp proofing. F accepts offer. G hires hopless builders to do damp proofing. hopeless agree to undertake the task for 10 000. G pays hopeless in advance. hopeless estimates cost between 7 K and 10 K. they agree ti redun any difference between 10 K and the actual cost. the refund is given directly to F. damp proofing is badly done. F ‘s house is damaged as a result. the cost is only 8 K.

hopless refusse to provide refund.

Contract was intended to benefit F. But G signed it. If G sues she will win. If F sues she will probably win as it would be just. the contract migjt have grnated her rights under rights of third parties act impliedly if not explicitly.

=============================

3. doctrine of privity has become largely irrelevant as a result of recent changes

True. Contracts right sof third parties act has provided many exceptions. Eurymedon already moved it this way. third party motor insurance is another blow to privity.

==================