Analysis of Susan v. Bob Case

Introduction

The case was between Bob and Susan concerns a house worth two hundred and ten thousand pounds, which was to be purchased by Bob but later changed his mind after they had agreed. According to the English Property Law, if the covenants are obliged, the owner is then allowed to carry out significant infrastructures to be paid. The law also states that since the money damages remedy has already occurred, they should rely on the liquidated damages provision and be compensated because of the buyer's breach. In the case of Susan and Bob, an agreement had been reached by both parties for the sale of a house at a total cost of two hundred and ten thousand pounds and certain chattels on the 27th of July 2018. The only thing left to be done with this transaction was to transfer the funds and exchange the title deed to the house, thus concluding the deal. In this paper, I am going to prove that the Law backed Susan and that, Bob egregiously mishandled her despite their agreement.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Law and Agreement

The agreement between Bob and Susan came was considered as a quasi-contract, and as such, it is fully recognized under the law as a legally binding contract. Bob breached the contract by pulling out without prior notice or even a written letter informing to Susan as to why he could not fulfill his end of the deal. Although the common law might have been surpassed by the constitution of any country and many other events, it still applies and carries a lot of weight. Earlier, common law was considered to have intertwined with the traditions of the people, and thus at times, it may hold more weight than some rules that are in the constitution. Under the LPA (Law of Property Act) of 1925, part II, section 85, which states that any covenant that is entered into by a person under their own free will is subject to enforcement.

The Breach

In the case of Johnston v. Cochran, 2007-Ohio-4408, a contract was written, and one of the parties did not sign. The plaintiff went to court and sued for the breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed that he had orally agreed to the agreement and the judge let the case proceed to trial. During the trial, a leeway for other lawsuits that are of a similar nature to take place was added. This alone would be enough to grant Susan her day in court considering that her agreement with Bob was signed by both her.

Taking into account the case of Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd of 1925, the two parties added an important pledge which made their contract non-binding under the law. Bob and Susan did not have the same promise that would disqualify their contract or agreement. In the case of Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff had sued for losses acquired due to the neglect of the defendant. The judge ruled in favor of the defendant, but upon the study of the case, some pioneers in the legal profession do not agree with the ruling that was passed. Bob claimed that the contract he signed with Susan was not legally bound which, if they had a pledge that disqualified the agreement, he would have been right.

Eisenberg does not agree with the ruling and the fact of the precedent case, by proposing that it should be scrapped as a law since it did not favor the plaintiff. Susan is allowed not only to sue Bob for breach of contract, but damages incurred during the month. The case of Hadley v Baxendale was used as a case study for many, and it was one of the earlier claims that one party sued for losses incurred during interaction with another party. Within that month, Bob took his time without contact or giving information about whether or not he was able to fulfill this agreement. Susan would have been able to sell the house considering it is a prime property in an excellent location.

The Faith-Doctrine

Looking at the faith-doctrine, which is a significant backbone of any contract, Bob did not act in good faith when all of a sudden, he decided to back out from the written agreement that he willingly entered into with Susan. He had an opportunity to back out at any point during the negotiations that they had. This was a contract that Bob came into without coercion meaning that Bob has no grounds that will prove his case stating that he did not get into a legally binding agreement. Every contract liability, limited or unlimited, understanding plays a role. Going by their argument, the period of the correspondence between Susan and Bob money and time was spent demanded compensation. The mere fact that the letter was kept, Bob should be penalized to some extent since Susan was wasting money and time to keep up with communication.

Conclusion

It is within Susan's constitutional right to sue Bob for a breach of contract. The law recognizes the agreement they had under various statutes, including the Law of Property Act of 1925, and thus Susan is even supposed to be compensated. Bob voluntarily entered into this agreement without coercion or intimidation. This was a willing-seller scenario, so if Bob had reservations, he would have let them be known and would have walked out of the negotiations earlier rather than making it come to a close where both parties have an agreement.

Bibliography

Table of Cases

England Cases

Teacher, Law. Hadley v Baxendale - 1854. (November 2013). Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/hadley-v-baxendale.php?vref=1

Teacher, Law. Rose and Frank v Crompton - 1923. (November 2013).Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/rose-and-frank-v-crompton.php?vref=1

U.S Cases

Johnston v. Cochran, (10th District, 2007) 2007-Ohio-4408

Primary Sources

Ayre L.B,.& Steven S. "Information and the Scope of Liability for Breach of Contract:" The Rule of Hadley vs. Baxendale," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University, Press, vol. 7(2), (1991), pages 284-312, Fall.

Barton J.H. "The Economic Basis of Damages for Breach of Contract," The Journal of Legal Studies 1, no. 2 (Jun. 1972): 277-304.

Eisenberg, M. "The Principle of Hadley v. Baxendale." California Law Review, 80(3), 563-613. (1992). doi:10.2307/3480709

Summers, R. "Good Faith" in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. Virginia Law Review, 54(2), 195-267. (1968) doi:10.2307/1071744

Secondary Sources

O'Connor, V. "Common Law and Civil Law Traditions." SSRN Electronic Journal. (2012) doi:10.2139/ssrn.2665675

Davies, P. S. 5. "Contract as an agreement." Law Trove. (2018) doi:10.1093/he/9780198807810.003.0005

Doe, N. "Faith, and Doctrine." Canon Law in the Anglican Communion, 187-214. (2010) doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267829.003.0008

Donaldson, B. "Buyer-Seller Interaction and Relationship Selling." Sales Management, 92-108. (2010). doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26354-7_5

Hage, J. "Facts, values, and norms." Facts and Norms in Law, 23-50. (2011) doi:10.4337/9781785361098.00008

Mendenhall, Allen, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and the Darwinian Common Law Paradigm 2015. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 2. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2708610

Poole, J. "Intention to be legally bound and capacity to contract." Casebook on Contract Law, 168-188. (2012). doi:10.1093/he/9780199699483.003.0005

Priel, D. "In Defence of Quasi-Contract." The Modern Law Review, 75(1), 54-77. (2011). doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00888.x

Preminger, O. "Two More Case Studies in Failed Agreement." Agreement and Its Failures, 103-122. (2014). doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.003.0006