When parties are entering into a contract, they must accept their legal responsibility and obligation each party has to each other before accepting to sign a contract. The contract between Peter and Ray had some legal requirements that were supposed to be fulfilled by both Peter and Ray. One of the requirements was an offer by Peter to supply Magazines at £100 for orders placed before 30th April and acceptance by Ray, who placed his order on 25th April. The second requirement was the legal capability to meet the obligation. Peter had the capacity in the production of magazines, and Ray could pay price consideration as demanded by Peter. The parties were also agreeing on a mutual consent for three years subscription.
Ray does not owe Peter £50 because he placed an order five days before the due date to the expiry of the offer. The delay of his order was not the fault of Ray but rather postal order delays. This was an external factor that Ray could not have controlled. He had nothing to do regarding postal services, and hence Peter was supposed to refer to the data when the order was placed rather than when he received the order from the postal offices. Referring to this data is subjecting Ray to the external factor, which none of them has control over them.
After parties have entered in a contract, it must be exercised as agreed upon during signing, irrespective of future unexpected changes that had occurred. Therefore, Sara had the right to receive a magazine supply for two years at £75 without any increment of the subscription fee. Peter, in this case, was against the law of contract because he was breaching his legal obligation towards playing his part in the fulfillment of their contract agreement with Sara.
Peter’s contractual agreement with Tom was not satisfied because Peter defaulted to play his obligation towards the contract. The consideration requirement for the contract was played party because Peter did not play his legal obligation. Tom had already written some book reviews for vision and hence, played his legal obligation. On the other hand, Peter did not supply any magazine to Tm, which was his consideration towards their contractual agreement. The mutual assent requirement was sufficiently fulfilled because Peter had agreed to offer Tom a year free subscription in consideration of book reviews written by Tom. Both had agreed on this time period of subscription.
Peter’s legal responsibility was to Supply Tom with magazines for one year on a free basis without default. However, Peter did not supply any magazine to Tom towards their contractual agreement. Therefore, he had breached the law of contract and had not exercised his legal duties in this contractual obligation.
For each of these cases, Peter has been proved to be a dishonest person to enter into a contractual agreement with. For the case of Ray, Peter should start supplying magazines without demanding an extra £50. To resolve their contractual dispute with Sara, Peter should continue supplying Sara with the magazines at £75, and an extra £15 should be charged to a party entering into a similar contract with pater at the present day. For the case of Tom, Peter should play his legal right and supply Tom with magazines for one year without any demand for a subscription fee from Tom.
Peter advertised widely in the media, offering various subscription deals to ‘Vision’, his politics magazine. One deal provided a subscription for three years and required payment of £100 to be made by 30 April. Orders received after that date would be charged at £150. Ray sent an order with a cheque for £100, which he posted on 25 April. His order was not delivered until the afternoon of 30 April because of a postal delay. It was then too late to put the cheque into the bank. Peter processed the order and banked Ray’s cheque the next day, but would not supply any magazines until Ray paid a further £50.
Sara paid £75 for a two-year subscription but, after 13 months, was informed that unexpected increases in costs made it absolutely necessary to charge an extra £15. Peter refused to send any more magazines until the additional payment was made.
Tom wrote some book reviews for ‘Vision’. A few months later, Peter told Tom that he could have a free, one-year subscription to ‘Vision’, in recognition of the reviews he had written. However, Peter did not send Tom any magazines.
Write a commentary and analysis of the contract law implications in the case study. You must use case law to provide evidence for the points that you make.
You should try to include most of the following:
Word count 500 words +/-