Legal Analysis of Crumdale Leisure Plc's Contracts with Dirtbreakers, Exams of Contract Law

Download Legal Analysis of Crumdale Leisure Plc's Contracts with Dirtbreakers and more Exams Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity! Crumdale Leisure Plc operates a leisure centre with a number of exercise facilities and swimming pools. They engage Dirtbreakers {ls to provide cleaning services to the leisure centre as follows: a) Because of the specialized nature of swimming pool cleaning Dirtbreaketrs arrange for specialist subcontractors to undertake the work: this arrangement means that Dirtbreakers can offer this service at £2,200 a week rather than their usual rate of £2,700 a week. The agreement between Dirtbreakers and Crumdale provides that the swimming pools will be cleaned twice weekly for a year to the satisfaction of the Crumdale maintenance manager. b) In a second separate agreement, Dirtbreakers undertake to clean the exercise facilities in the leisure centre; Crumdale agree that the Dirtbreakers’ duty manager will determine the cleaning required; and when these services will be preformed; and the parties shall agree, from time to time, the prices for the cleaning and the payment due dates. For the first two months, a Dirtbreakers subcontractor clean the pools to the satisfaction of the Crumdale maintenance manager. However Dirtbreakers encounter difficulties in obtaining suitable contractors. They realize that they will have to pay a subcontractor far more monmey, and so they approach Crumdale and tell them they will need £3,000 a week. Although Crumdale are concerned that no cleaning work has been undertaken with regards to the second agreement, they reluctantly agree as they realise that it will be impossible for them to obtain the same services without a even greater price increase. A month later, Crumdale’s swimming pools are satisfactorily cleaned at this higher price but there has been no cleaning of the other facilities in the leisure centre. Advise Crumdale. a) A contractual agreement encompasses the commitments made by each involved party and the corresponding legal responsibilities arising from said commitments. Concurring with the statement, it is imperative to note that the mere presence of an offer and an acceptance does not suffice to establish a legally enforceable contract. The inclusion of a legal obligation that aligns with the intentions of the parties involved is what distinguishes an agreement as a contract. If the individuals who assented did not intend for their agreement to hold legal weight, it would not be admissible as a viable contractual agreement in a court of law. The assessment of intent can solely be accomplished through the utilization of the "OBJECTIVE" approach. Impartiality is evident in the language of the contract, the conduct of the involved parties, the overall circumstances, and various other aspects. Categorizing a contract is the initial step in determining its legal enforceability. Each category possesses its own set of presumptions and corresponding methods for refuting them. The act of making additional promises, including an increase in payment, while a contract is still in effect. Is there any indication of economic coercion or pressure? If affirmative, there is no requirement to provide supplementary payment. Lord Scarman, in the case of Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long (1979), proposed that the following factors ought to be taken into account with regard to business pressures: 1. Had the individual voiced their opinion at the given moment. 2. If the individual had alternative choices. 3. If the individual had received the information independently, 4. If an individual takes action to withdraw from the agreement. The case of Progress Bulk Carriers Limited v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm) established that the determination of liability is contingent upon the specific factual circumstances of each case. Information pertaining to this case has not been provided. If economic duress is absent, are any of the exceptions applicable? In the case of Williams v Roffey Bros [1991] 1 QB 1, Lord Justice Glidewell LJ of the Court of Appeal made a significant ruling regarding the existence of consideration for the second promise. The judge employed the "practical benefit approach test" to articulate the legal principle: 1) The agreement pertained to the provision of either goods or services. 2) A failed to fulfill their commitment, possibly due to financial pressure. 3) B has agreed to provide a higher amount of payment. 4) B acquired a tangible advantage. 5) There was no evidence of fraudulent activity or coercion. 6) If all the conditions are met, then the element of consideration is deemed to be present. If all the criteria of the practical benefit approach test are met, Bertie will be obligated to make the supplementary payment to Liam. If the answer is negative, then it should be placed under the second exception. The legal doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. The legal doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is not recognized as a viable independent cause of action. The case of "Combe v. Combe" pertains to a legal dispute between a married couple who were in the process of obtaining a divorce. The husband consented to providing his spouse with a yearly monetary sum. The former spouse initiated legal proceedings against her ex-husband after a period of six years, citing his commitment to remit funds which he had failed to fulfill. The Court of Appeal determined that the promissory estoppel doctrine lacks the capacity to serve as a foundation for a cause of action, and is typically restricted to serving as a defense mechanism, functioning as a protective measure rather than an offensive one. So, No, Crumdale should not make an additional payment to Dirtbreakers. b. In order for a contract to be legally binding, it is necessary for the terms to be unambiguous and easily comprehensible. In order for a legally binding agreement to be classified as a contract, it is imperative that the terms of the agreement are unambiguous and easily comprehensible. In the absence of mutual agreement on a fundamental aspect, a contractual agreement cannot be established. If a statement lacks clarity, it cannot be considered an offer. According to the ruling in Scammell v. Ouston (1941) AC 251, the enforceability of the agreement was deemed invalid due to the lack of clarity in its terms, which required further mutual agreement between the parties involved. According to Viscount Maugham, the absence of clarity in the terms of the agreement led to the parties not reaching a consensus ad idem, thereby rendering the agreement invalid. The legal concept underlying this particular field of law posits that in the event that the precise terms of a contract cannot be definitively ascertained, the court is precluded from interpreting said contract. The court is not authorized to unilaterally establish the provisions of a contract, as this would entail compelling the