Business law, English leagal system, Contract law Essay

Business right, incline leagal system, Contract law - Essay ExampleIn the first scenario, it can be noted that The English National operetta Company entered into a pack with Costumes R Us for the purchase of theatre costumes which were to be made fit in to designs supplied by the English National operetta Company. All terms were agreed and the initial deposit was compensable where the remaining balance will be paid upon delivery of the goods. Unfortunately, the premises of Costumes R Us were destroyed by assoil before the delivery day. By any standard, this scenario represents a typical withdraw explained in the definition above. This type of ignore involves the sale of goods and is governed by the barter of Goods Act of 1979. Gibson (1988) suggests that the seller has a responsibility to deliver the goods purchased upon payment and the buyer has a duty to pay for the goods where ownership can be exchanged. The S.2(1) of The Sale of Goods Act 1979 concurs with this asser tion and goes on to define a contract for the sale of goods as A contract by which a seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property (ownership) in goods to a buyer for a money consideration called the price. The contracting partners in this case ar bound by certain conditions which are very important to the contract so as to protect the victim in the event of prisonbreak of contract which entitles him to repudiate and sue for damages. From this given scenario, it can be noted that there is a binding contract between English National light opera Company and Costumes R Us. Legally, English National Operetta Company is entitled to claim for its refund of the amount paid following the failure by Costumes R Us to deliver the consignment before the date. Though it may be argued that this is a breach of a contract, it can be noted that to a greater extent, this scenario was a result of circumstances that were beyond the match of the suppliers of the costumes. Their premises were g utted by fire which was caused by the children playing so it would be inequitable to lay the rouse on them. This unfortunate incidence is what is normally called frustration of contract. Macintyre (2010) posits to the effect that the result of an event which occurs after qualifying and acceptance (the agreement) which prevents performance being carried out and which, as a consequence will terminate the contract legally with no risk to either political party to be sued for breach. In this scenario, it will be unfair to say that Costumes R Us has breached a contract given that that the frustrating event involving the outbreak of fire is not the fault or a result of the actions of this organisation in question. It becomes impossible for the other party to fulfil their duty in the event of destruction of the subject matter of the contract for example Taylor v. Caldwell (1863). In such a situation, it is assumed that the contract has been cancelled naturally. Against this background, it is therefore advisable to English National Operetta Company not to sue this company for damages given that there will be possible chances that they will lose the case. It is the duty of the court of law to weigh the circumstances surrounding the frustration of the contract and come with an informed decision hence the chances of winning this case are very few. However, it is advisable that English National