A contract represents “a mutual agreement between two or more parties that something shall be done or forborne by one or both”, signifies “the supply of certain articles” and implies “ the performance of the specified work at a certain price, rate, or commission”(Harder, 2013). Every contract should be legally enforceable, even one not in writing. Although proving the existence of the contract may be harder if it is not in writing, it may still be formed. In case one and two, both of the contractors does not fulfill one of its obligations under the contract which includes the gratuitous promises. Especially, if “one party breaches the terms within the contract as a result of a gratuitous promise made by the other party”(Marston, pp. 93), broken
…show more content…
Any change to a contract requires, like the original contract, that both parties are enriched in some way--that is, each party must receive some form of consideration”(Marston, 2008). The contracted firm will be equitably estopped from the action of terminating the contract, just as in the 1979 Ontario Court of Appeal case of “Owen Sound Public Library Board v. Mial developments Ltd. et al”(Marston, pp. 95). In this case, after the contractor extends the date of owner’s payment, the owner asks for a sealed document in order to confirm the extension and the contractor agrees with it. However, as time goes on, the contractor not only does not produce the sealed document, but also pulls back his promise which is the extension of the owner’s payment date to the owner. Thus, the Court of Appeals implements the rule of equity. Similarly, the case one implements the same principle. Therefore, the information technology firm is not entitled to terminate the contract and it will be equitably estopped. The airline will be successful in suing the information technology firm and deserve a compensation which include the extra cost of the price of hiring another firm to finish the project and any further damages directly due to the breach of
Any change to a contract requires, like the original contract, that both parties are enriched in some way--that is, each party must receive some form of consideration”(Marston, 2008). The contracted firm will be equitably estopped from the action of terminating the contract, just as in the 1979 Ontario Court of Appeal case of “Owen Sound Public Library Board v. Mial developments Ltd. et al”(Marston, pp. 95). In this case, after the contractor extends the date of owner’s payment, the owner asks for a sealed document in order to confirm the extension and the contractor agrees with it. However, as time goes on, the contractor not only does not produce the sealed document, but also pulls back his promise which is the extension of the owner’s payment date to the owner. Thus, the Court of Appeals implements the rule of equity. Similarly, the case one implements the same principle. Therefore, the information technology firm is not entitled to terminate the contract and it will be equitably estopped. The airline will be successful in suing the information technology firm and deserve a compensation which include the extra cost of the price of hiring another firm to finish the project and any further damages directly due to the breach of