有關contract law的case study
I hope someone could answer few questions!
1.If Peter make a offer by selling computer to Mary, 50% of deposit pay in advance and remaining 50% will be paid after delivery of computer within 15 days! When Mary received the computer and didn't pay within 15 days! Could Peter recover the price from Mary?
咁我可以用d咩theroy apply 係呢個case?係咪首先講係咪有valid contract,再apply other theory? (用Promissory estoppel???)
2. Since John is the employer of ABC Limited and Sally is the employee. John requested Sally to work 2 hrs overtime a day for a week. It was agreed between both parties that John would pay a lump sum of $500 as remuneration to Sally. The hourly rate for overtime work in ABC Limited should be $100 which sally was well known before she agreed the a lump sum of $500! Sally also performed the overtime work!
Question: Can sally later sue John for the reasons of inadequency of consideration for the overtime work?
我知係唔可以,但係用咩thoery apply ??(又係Promissory estoppel??)
3:有關capacity of parties,我知minors係買一些non-necessaries 係no a valid contract!但如果佢真係買non-necessaries goods,咁可唔可以將呢份contract 當係voidable contract???
- Kenzzz_chLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
1. Peter's offer constitutes 3 main elements: sellingcomputer to Mary; 50% of deposit pay in advance; remaining 50% will bepaid after delivery of computer within 15 days.
Mary should haveaccepted the offer and paid up the deposit before the computer isdelivered. If so, there is a valid contract and it is a clear breach ofcontractual provisions. Peter can recover the price from Mary.You donot need any other principles to assist you in such circumstances.
IfMary did not accept the offer and did not pay up the deposit before thecomputer is delivered but keeps the computer in her possession, shewill be deemed to have accepted the offer by conduct.Peter can recover the price from Mary.
InRoberts v. Hayward,a tenant accepted his landlord's offer of a newtenancy at an increasedrent by simply staying on the premises. It was heldthat he had acceptedthe landlord's offer by conduct.
However, if Mary did notkeep the laptop, did not assumer right of ownership on it and tried toreturn it to Peter, it does not constitute an acceptance by conduct.
I cannot see how Promissory estoppel can be applicable to this situation.
2. How can you use promissory estoppel? It can be used as a shield (to defend) and not as a sword (to sue)!!!
Itis a well-etsablished principle that consideration must be sufficientbut need not be adequate. The court will never inquire into theadequacy of consideration. An example is Chappell & Co v Nestle whereit was held by the Court of Appeal that 6 chocolate bar wrappers inreturn for a gramophone the Nestle chocolate company was offeringaspart of a promotion, was valid consideration for Nestle's offer.
Hence Sally cannot sue John for the reasons of inadequency of consideration for the overtime work.
2008-10-14 21:11:43 補充：
3. It depends. Voidable contracts by minors are confined to contracts by which an infant acquires an interest in some subject matter of a permanent nature. Otherwise the contract will be treated as void.
2008-10-14 21:11:49 補充：
If Mary acquires an interest in some subject matter of a permanent nature, Mary can choose whether or not to void the contract. So it depends on Mary's wish.