This assignment has already been submitted by one of our student in past and is just a sample of our paperwork. Please Do not use this for your college project.
Richard, an impoverished university student, and his millionaire father enter into an arrangement where Richard agrees that he will keep the front- and backyards of the family property mowed, and he will ‘do a bit’ to keep the gardens looking tidy. In return, his father agrees to pay him a weekly allowance of $200. His father had previously used a garden contractor to do the job and paid him $350. They live on a one-hectare property, and the mowing alone takes half a day a week. After four weeks, Richard’s father tells him that he can’t afford to pay $200 a week. He says that Richard should be doing the work for nothing, as it is the responsibility of the whole family to look after the property; besides, he says, Richard is getting free board and lodging.
Joe, a well-known film actor, entered into a contract with Frère Bros for a period of five years where he agreed to give his services exclusively to Frère Bros and not act in films for any other company during this period. During the first year of the agreement, Joe entered into a contract to star in a film being made by Pretty Pictures. Does Frère Bros have any remedy?
The plaintiff in the case being Richard, an impoverished student and the defendant pertaining to this case is Richard’s father who is a millionaire. The agreement that exists between Richard and his father can be considered to be the one which would form part of the domestic contract. The issue pertaining to the case wherein Richard being a university student is entering into an agreement with his dad. Richard has agreed with his dad that he would be mowing the front and the backyards of the property owned by Richards’s family. Basis the agreement his father had already agreed to pay him a weekly allowance. The weekly allowance which was agreed by the two was $200. The allowance was supposed to aid in Richards’s university fee. Though Richards’s father is a millionaire but he still tells his son, that the amount agreed by him for the mowing of the front and backyard of the property cannot be paid by him. Although Richards dad was making more than the amount of $200 that was agreed between the two. Still he went ahead and made his son Richard to believe that the work what he is doing falls under his responsibility as the property belongs to the whole family. Richards’s father also advises that Richard is availing the free boarding and lodging too. The validity of the contract that exists between Richard and his millionaire dad while Richard is trying to claim the money based on the contract that was agreed upon between both of them.
Considering from a legal perspective, the binding on the parties being an agreement would also bring into picture the legal relationship that exists basis the agreement. This forms as an important component of the contract. For the domestic or the contracts that have the related social components attached, the legally binding presumption does not apply. The presentation before the court can be brought into account and the intention for the contract to be legally bound created (Wallis, C., 2008). The legally binding assumption based from a legal perspective does not validate a contract between the parent and the child. The plaintiff side of opinion can be illustrated with the Wakeling v Ripley case wherein the defendant being a wealthy man lived at a huge place in Sydney. The plaintiffs being the wealthy man’s sister and her husband lived in UK. The defendant wrote to the plaintiffs and asked them to move to Sydney. He also stated that as per the promise he would be providing them a home to stay and that all the property he owns would be left for them post his death. Based on the promise given, the sister had sold off their house in England and her husband too quit his job. After the plaintiffs lived with the defendants for some period, he had an argument with them and subsequently even changed his will. The plaintiff did sue in this case for the breach of contract (Mance, K. L., 2011). Considering the defendant side of opinion linked to the case of Richard and his father wherein the contract was formed between them, the defendant had agreed to pay wages to the plaintiff. The defendant has also provided free boarding and lodging to the plaintiff. Even though such a provisioning is being done by the defendant to the plaintiff, the creation of the contract would not be affected by such a provision (Gross, B., & Bashilova, D., 2014). The evidence that was provisioned in the case was sufficient to prove that the contract was enforceable in the eyes of law and that it was very much binding on the parties. The case of Jones v Padvattaan can be taken as an example wherein the mother had promised to pay the daughter a sum of $200, in case she would quit her job at United States. The daughter did show reluctance in doing so. The mother wanted the daughter to join her in Trinidad. The daughter believed the currency to be in US dollars (Eisenberg, T., & Farber, H. S., 2013). Whereas the mother had meant Trinidad dollars. On conversion, the amount would not even be close to half of what the daughter was expecting basis the US dollars. The daughter would not be able to afford more than one room to stay with her son (Emons, W., & Fluet, C.,2016). The mother also agreed that she would purchase a house for the daughter. She did purchase a huge house which could partly be utilized as the income of the rooms let would aid in the maintenance payment. The mother sought possession of the house after the daughter had agreed to quit and come to Trinidad. It was held by the court that the agreement that prevailed was domestic one and also raised a presumption that the parties do not legally bound them to the contract. There was no such evidence which would have rebutted the same presumption.
Richard had also agreed that he would mow the front along with the back garden and in return he would be compensated for $200 by his dad. Richard believed the statement which was given by his father and the trust was established. Richard continues to perform based on the contract such formed between his dad and him (Perritt Jr, H. H., 2013). Richard did perform the contractual part and as per the honorable courts judgement to the cases that have been on the similar platform, it has been held that the person proceeding with his or her part of performance basis the contract should be compensated for his/her part. Such a person should not be deprived of the reward.
Basis the case discussed, Richard is entitled for the labor he has done basis the contract. The weekly allowance which was agreed by the two was $200. The allowance was supposed to aid in Richards’s university fee. Though Richards’s father is a millionaire but he still tells his son, that the amount agreed by him for the mowing of the front and backyard of the property cannot be paid by him (Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M, 2014). Although Richards dad was making more than the amount of $200 that was agreed between the two. He should be moving to the courts to enforce his rights against his own dad. Considering all this, Richard’s father is bound to pay him as the contract has the components preset which prove it to be enforceable and the valid contract exists between the parties.
Joe is a well-known film actor. He has entered into contract with Frere Bros. The contract has the clear terms mentioned that Joe would not provide his services to anyone else in the industry. It stands as a contractual agreement and the contract also defines the time period for the validity of the contract which is five years. Joe does not abide by the contract and during the first year of the contract, Joe signs up another contract with Pretty Pictures to star in their film.
The contract is a legal agreement that is drafted between both parties to the contract and the parties are legally bound with the set clauses. These clauses as mentioned in the contract also pertain to our case wherein Joe contracts that he would just act in Frere Bros. Frere Bros. does not expect Joe to work elsewhere (Alter, K. J.,2012). In the case, Joe does not adhere to the clause mentioned as part of the contract and negates it while he opts to contract with another company just after year from signing contract with Frere Bros. The terms of the contract were clear to both the parties and this also includes the clause of the time frame that for over five years, Joe would not work for any other movie company (Bennett, W. L., 2012). Both the parties are bound by the contract. Contracts and legal frameworks provide the justification along with the foundations of the terms as agreed between parties who are contraacting. The element of being legally bound exists to a greater extent. In the case DeCicco v.Schweizer too, the facts of the case present that four days in advance of the wedding of Schweizer to the Italian groom, the bride’s parents had conferred money to the bride with the condition that the same shall continue till the time her parents are alive. The payment was made at the time of marriage of $2,500 and post the tenth payment, no payment was done to the couple. The couple was married and they had abided by the contract and while serving as defendant, the suit was brought by them. The consideration that Schweizer brought out was that the marriage was not terminated (Hillman, R. A., 2012). Then why would the parents of the bride not abide by the contract as that was drawn between both the parties and that the bride’s parents did agree to the conferred money.
For any commercial tractions serving as part of the contract, the mutual agreement between both the parties have to be met. Such commercial transactions do aid in providing a mode that the organizations could undertake their promises (Polle, J., 2016). The contract for it to be enforceable in the court of law has to include the basic components that would form to be a necessitate which is (i) Offer & Acceptance, (ii) Intention for Creating Legal Relation, (iii) Consideration, (iv) Legal Capacities, and (v) Consent. In the case of Joe, who is a well-established actor, the contract drawn with him bounds him to work elsewhere with another film company. The reason associated with such a condition imposed as part of the contract with Frere Bros.is to make both the parties legally bound to the contract for the time frame of five years. If any of the parties to such a contract does not exercise their part, a suit can be filed against the party.
Going by the case stated and the arguments along with the issue and the application of law in the case of valid contracts, it can be concluded that a suit can be brought against Joe, the movie actor by Frere Bros. The contract has the clear terms mentioned that Joe would not provide his services to anyone else in the industry. It stands as a contractual agreement and the contract also defines the time period for the validity of the contract which is five years. Since Joe has not abided by the terms of the contract, Frere Bros.is in a position to sue Joe for the same.
Jones v Padvattan  2 All ER 618
DeCicco v. Schweizer  117. NE 807
Wakeling v Ripley  51 SR (NSW) 183
Alter, K. J. (2012). The global spread of European style international courts.West European Politics, 35(1), 135-154.
Bennett, W. L. (2014). Press-government relations in a changing media environment. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication.
Chris Wallis, ‘Breach of Contract- Performance, Breach and Frustration’ (2008).University of Ballard, Retrieved from:
Eisenberg, T., & Farber, H. S. (2013). Why Do Plaintiffs Lose Appeals? Biased Trial Courts, Litigious Losers, or Low Trial Win Rates?. American law and economics review, 15(1), 73-109.
Emons, W., & Fluet, C. (2016). Why plaintiffs’ attorneys use contingent and defense attorneys fixed fee contracts. International Review of Law and Economics, 47, 16-23.
Gross, B., & Bashilova, D. (2014). A Wake-Up Call to Merchants: The Cost of” Illegible” Consumer Contracts. Banking & Finance Law Review, 29(2), 373.
Hillman, R. A. (2012). The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law (Vol. 28). Springer Science & Business Media.
Ken La Mance (2011). ‘Capacity to contract Lawyer’, Legal Match, Retrieved from:
Perritt Jr, H. H. (2013). Preclusive Effect of Administrative Decisions in Wrongful Dismissal Suits. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 5(1), 3.
Poole, J. (2016). Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2014). A configural approach to the study of organizational culture and climate.