LAW

Unit 5: Aspects of Contract Law and Negligence

Unit 5: Aspects of Contract Law and Negligence

Task 1

Introduction

A contract in a law can define as the agreement that has a lawful value and that is made by two to more parties. The contracts are of many types, and it is not necessary the presence of the two parties in contract. There are two types of contract the unilateral contracts and bilateral contracts. In the unilateral contracts, one party assumes the contract whereas the second party is just involved in the contract on the obligations. Apart from this the bilateral contacts involve two or more parties involved in the making of the contract. The contract has two elements namely offer and acceptance and both of these elements have legal obligations if the court is consulted.

The negligence is the failure of any party in a contract to comply with the terms of the contract. This means that any party who is involved in breach of the contract that party is following the negligence. This involves the harm to the other party or one party gaining benefit on the expense of the other party. The harm caused may be unintentional, or it may be intentional.

John, Muller and Alex Case Background

This case is basically about the lost dog whose owner has promised to pay compensation to the person who will find the dog for the owner. A third person unaware of the situation and the promise made by the owner of the dog finds the dog and then gives the dog to the owner. His friend told him about the compensation for finding the dog, and he claims the compensation. On the other hand, the owner of the dog refuses to pay the compensation stating the reason that the dog was his property, and he is by no means obligated to pay compensation to the finder.

Is the Contract Valid?

The contract made in the above case is not a valid contract. The contract is not valid because John the owner of the dog promised the compensation on the recovery of the dog. As soon as Alex found the dog this means that he did not accept the offer and so did not get engaged in the contract with the John. This is because Alex was unaware of reward and, so his intention was not the reward but was just to return the dog. On the other hand, it was not an obligation on Alex to find the dog because the promise was posted publically by John (Beever, 2009, 22-35).

In this case, the other essential element is that Alex was unaware of the promise that he will be given compensation if he will find the dog. His friend told him that he will get the compensation and that Alex should claim his compensation from John. This is also an important matter and element, that whether Alex was aware or unaware of the compensation because the owner John could not determine that who read the offer and who did ...