3) Cathy v DeliDeli
There exists a written contract between SCULPTURa and DeliDeli in which the latter agreed to supply food to Cathy’s exhibition. Cathy had specifically hired DeliDeli as she had been led to believe that all their food was gluten-free, but on the day of the exhibition they supplied food that was not gluten-free. Cathy could potentially be awarded damages, rescission is not available as the contract has ended.
Implied Term
Furthermore, from the above it could be argued that the term for the food to be gluten-free was an implied term in fact. Terms implied by fact are based off of the intention of the parties, the intention here being that the food would be gluten-free. Two tests have arisen to show this: the business efficacy …show more content…
Here it must be shown by Cathy that she entered into the contract in reliance and after a representation of fact had been made by DeliDeli and from the contract she faced losses. DeliDeli must prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing their statement to be true to avoid having to pay damages to Cathy. However, if DeliDeli could show that the statement was innocent misrepresentation then Cathy would not be able to get damages. Damages will not be awarded for this type if rescission itself is not also available. Innocent misrepresentation exists where the representor can show reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the statement made. Unfortunately for Cathy this seems to be the most applicable type of misrepresentation.
4) LodaPHONE v Cathy
There exists a written contract between Cathy and LodaPHONEs that contains a clause regarding late payments. Cathy was late with paying her phone bill and now is required to pay a late payment fee. Cathy may or may not have to pay this fee depending on whether or not the clause was reasonable.
Unfair …show more content…
A penalty clause is when an excessive amount will become payable in the event that there is a breach of contract. Penalty clauses can be helpful as it lets each party know exactly what will happen when a breach occurs. It is meant to deter a breach as the penalty amount is generally a lot larger than what would have been paid had there not be a breach. An issue with this is that the penalty amount cannot be too exorbitant. The test for reasonableness is whether the amount required is unconscionable or ridiculous when regard is given to the innocent party’s interest in the execution of the
There exists a written contract between SCULPTURa and DeliDeli in which the latter agreed to supply food to Cathy’s exhibition. Cathy had specifically hired DeliDeli as she had been led to believe that all their food was gluten-free, but on the day of the exhibition they supplied food that was not gluten-free. Cathy could potentially be awarded damages, rescission is not available as the contract has ended.
Implied Term
Furthermore, from the above it could be argued that the term for the food to be gluten-free was an implied term in fact. Terms implied by fact are based off of the intention of the parties, the intention here being that the food would be gluten-free. Two tests have arisen to show this: the business efficacy …show more content…
Here it must be shown by Cathy that she entered into the contract in reliance and after a representation of fact had been made by DeliDeli and from the contract she faced losses. DeliDeli must prove that they had reasonable grounds for believing their statement to be true to avoid having to pay damages to Cathy. However, if DeliDeli could show that the statement was innocent misrepresentation then Cathy would not be able to get damages. Damages will not be awarded for this type if rescission itself is not also available. Innocent misrepresentation exists where the representor can show reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the statement made. Unfortunately for Cathy this seems to be the most applicable type of misrepresentation.
4) LodaPHONE v Cathy
There exists a written contract between Cathy and LodaPHONEs that contains a clause regarding late payments. Cathy was late with paying her phone bill and now is required to pay a late payment fee. Cathy may or may not have to pay this fee depending on whether or not the clause was reasonable.
Unfair …show more content…
A penalty clause is when an excessive amount will become payable in the event that there is a breach of contract. Penalty clauses can be helpful as it lets each party know exactly what will happen when a breach occurs. It is meant to deter a breach as the penalty amount is generally a lot larger than what would have been paid had there not be a breach. An issue with this is that the penalty amount cannot be too exorbitant. The test for reasonableness is whether the amount required is unconscionable or ridiculous when regard is given to the innocent party’s interest in the execution of the