Question 1
Under Scenario one, it’s likely that CompuMac will be able to claim damages for breach of contract, including a refund of deposit. Under Scenario two, it is likely that CompuMac will be required to pay the balance amount to BestCoach.
This advice will be in four parts. Part one will show that there has been a valid contract between CompuMac and BestCoach even though it was Peter who paid the deposit to BestCoach. Part two will show that there is an implied condition that time is of the essence. Part three will show that there was no frustration event in either Scenario one or two. Lastly, part four will show that in Scenario one, Since BestcCoach has breached the contract; CompuMac is entitled to damages, which may include the refund of deposit. It will also show that in Scenario 2, not withstanding the lack of a frustration event, CompuMac is entitled to terminate the contract and claim for damages where BestCoach has committed and anticipatory breach of the contract.
Part One …show more content…
An agent can enter a legal relationship with a third party on the principal’s behalf. There can be an apparent authority when the principal makes representation: Freeman & Lokyer v BPP (1964). In this case, Peter has both actual and apparent authority. Being the Managing Director of CompuMac fulfills the actual authority of an agent and the fact that he is allowed to be seen as the Managing Directors fulfills the apparent authority of an agent. Therefore there is a valid contract between CompuMac and BestCoach even thought Peter paid the deposit to
Under Scenario one, it’s likely that CompuMac will be able to claim damages for breach of contract, including a refund of deposit. Under Scenario two, it is likely that CompuMac will be required to pay the balance amount to BestCoach.
This advice will be in four parts. Part one will show that there has been a valid contract between CompuMac and BestCoach even though it was Peter who paid the deposit to BestCoach. Part two will show that there is an implied condition that time is of the essence. Part three will show that there was no frustration event in either Scenario one or two. Lastly, part four will show that in Scenario one, Since BestcCoach has breached the contract; CompuMac is entitled to damages, which may include the refund of deposit. It will also show that in Scenario 2, not withstanding the lack of a frustration event, CompuMac is entitled to terminate the contract and claim for damages where BestCoach has committed and anticipatory breach of the contract.
Part One …show more content…
An agent can enter a legal relationship with a third party on the principal’s behalf. There can be an apparent authority when the principal makes representation: Freeman & Lokyer v BPP (1964). In this case, Peter has both actual and apparent authority. Being the Managing Director of CompuMac fulfills the actual authority of an agent and the fact that he is allowed to be seen as the Managing Directors fulfills the apparent authority of an agent. Therefore there is a valid contract between CompuMac and BestCoach even thought Peter paid the deposit to