Candy And Blair Case Summary

1347 Words 5 Pages
Candy and Blair
-Coffee beans supply contract
Issue A: Can Candy get out of the supply contract early just as Blair promised?
Candy will get out of the contract early as long as she can successfully raise an estoppel against Blair. The law of estoppel stops a party from unconscionable conduct, this is often known as promissory estoppel, a party will not be allowed to say that no contract exists because of lacking consideration . However, if a plaintiff wants to raise an estoppel successfully, a promise or representation made by defendant must be provided . On the basis of facts presented, Blair did make a promise without consideration to Candy as he said ‘just between friends, if it doesn’t work out I’ll let you out of the contract early’ and he retreat it when Candy asked to get out of the contract. In this circumstance, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to prevent Blair retreating his promise .
It follows that Candy is likely to get out of the contract at present under the doctrine of promissory estoppel
Issue B: Is there a fraudulent misrepresentation during the negotiation?
If a fraudulent misrepresentation happened, the
…show more content…
It can be assumed that the parties did intend to create legal relations in commercial or business contract and therefore it is easier to establish that the parties did intend that their agreement would be legally binding. Nevertheless, this presumption could be rebutted by honor only clauses or the wording of the agreement . Based on this, the presumption that they had intention to create binding contract still exists. For one thing, the sale between them is a commercial transaction. For another, Ariel just inserted the clause to let Candy find suitable finance and Candy did not have intention to proceed with the sale later, this is neither honor only clause nor wording of the agreement itself. So it cannot be

Related Documents

Related Topics