Contracts Analysis of Damages Law-Suit and Mundo Manufacturers

Contract Analysis 1: Barbara's Damages law-suit against Alfred.

The two farmers Barbara and Alfred destined by the fate of drought entered a contract for a good drilling. Barbara, a farmer in this set up requires water for both irrigation and domestic use. She prefers well water to the one supplied by the county for years because of some quality. It has a different taste. She is also an apple farmer. Her neighbour, Alfred is quite more advanced, owns a water drilling equipment. Though he is not a commercial driller, for this matter, Barbara intends to higher him. He finds the deal interesting and agrees to work for her with conditions. Damages are provisions of recovery of what has been lost by the complainant following a failed contract (Halikiopoulou, 2018).

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

Save 25%

Scope

Barbara requires water for her well and a well for her crops and family. The well would be dug by her neighbour, Alex. They both agree on the pay and time. Alex agrees to drill at the cost of $10 per feet. He again states that the maximum number of feet he will go for is six hundred. This brings his cost to an estimated cost of six thousand dollars. Of these, he requests for an advance of three thousand five hundred dollars before the work commences. Barbara obliges and pays three thousand five hundred as he begins his work.

Schedule

They agree on the starting date to be May first. Alfred shows up as agreed. Working at the normally as planned, Alfred hopes to finish the job by July first. Barbara agrees with this.

Quality

Unforeseen future comes by. The future is indeed unfathomable. At exactly two hundreds of feet work, the drill stuck to rock and broke. This was an accident as nobody planned it. Nobody planned for it as well. This translates to the breach of the contract's terms.

Cost

Until the time when the drill broke, had used a total amount of two thousand four hundred US Dollars. He was operating at the cost of twelve US Dollars per feet translating to two thousand four hundred. Up to this time Barbara on her side boasts of having used a total of three thousand five hundred which she initially paid as a deposit. So should the contract end at this stage, Alfred stands to lose an income of six thousand US Dollars before costs. On the other, Barbara stands to lose a total amount of up to three thousand US Dollars.

Procurement

Every contractual agreement has an attainment procedure for various processes, laws, briefings, commodities among other things. (Goldberg, 2018). No difficulty was observed in the equipment procurement process. Everything was ready. The only difficulties we witness are the changes in the cost of production per feet. Initially, Alfred projected $10 per feet. When he started work, it turned out that he would work at an adjusted cost of $12 per feet. Going by this calculation, he would lose $2 for every single foot he drilled. Again, for the new deal to take rot, he has to forgo the cost he had made on the failed hole. One thing remains constant here; the employer would not pay more than the agreed amount.

Offer

The original agreement between the two was a borehole for money. He would fail to deliver the well by June 1st. Both parties have however shown enough commitment for the contract. Barbara has paid the required deposit. On his side, Alfred reported on the drilling without fail. He continues and starts off his work immediately. His driller stuck a rock accidentally and against his wish, broke down. Alfred therefore, committed to delivering what they agreed on, goes ahead and proposes new terms. These will hopefully enable him to complete the deal. He, therefore, offers to not to charge Barbara for the useless hole that he has dug there half way but to dig another within the compound. He, however, does not promise to deliver the hole by July 1st. The angered Barbara refutes the offer. She knew that everything wouldn't be well if she doesn't get water. She ends the contract and hires Carl for completion.

Damages

If the collection of factors agreed upon in the contract fails to be met, the complainant is entitled to some form of compensation (Halikiopoulou, 2018). The complainant never received the true value for her money. She paid for the services she is not about to receive any time soon. Following the Breaches, the contract could not meet its terms. The project's purpose was not achieved. The plaintiff loses apple fifteen thousand dollars of worth. She could not irrigate her cropland. Again, she could not obtain water of her chosen taste by July first as agreed. Again, she needs to recover part or whole of the money she had paid to Alfred for the service he never delivered. There is also a possibility of making claims on the destruction of beauty in her compound. The scene left after an incomplete hole presents an ugly view. Other than that, the whole is a complete object of accidents, particularly when there are no lights. Lastly, she had to continue incurring costs on county supplied water which she continued to use for her use, and for her animals.

Barbara's rights as a complainant (Goldberg, 2018):

Following her upset, Barbara had the following legal claims against Alfred:

• Alfred owed her an amount of up to $3500 for services not delivered.
• Alfred's failure to deliver his promise of delivering a borehole in her compound by July 1st as promised.
• Alfred's failure to deliver on time and as promised resulted in her loss of $ 1500 apple. She believes she could have saved this through irrigation.
• The complainant is unable to access clean water for drinking, free of taste as a result of the defendant's failure to deliver the promise.

Damages recovery

The plaintiff is likely to recover some or whole of the amount of money he had paid as a deposit to her water project. What her complain about compensation is genuine. She is however not likely to receive back the whole amount as the defendant already invested part of it in the venture. She is likely to receive an amount not more than $1100 as the difference between what she paid and what remained of the activity. The defendant is unlikely to be punished for his failure to deliver the hole on time. He had good intentions but failed on the accident related grounds. The complainant deserves compensation on her crop failure following lack of irrigation water. But this is quietly debatable since nobody intended to do the damage. Her preparedness for disaster management should follow. How prepared was she if irrigation failed, or had not come through? This would equally apply to her inability to access water from her taste's choice. It is, therefore, true that the complainant is likely to lose this case to the defendant as he pleads not to be guilty of any negligence of duty or evil intentions. Furthermore, he stayed in the contract even when things proved so tough.

References

Goldberg, V. P. (2018). Reckoning Contract Damages: Valuation of the Contract as an Asset. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 75, 301.

Halikiopoulou, D., Vasilopoulou, S., Wegner, E., Greer, S. L., Jarman, H., Hooghe, M., ... & Jones, E. (2018). Rethinking Party System Nationalization in India (1952-2014) Arjan H. Schakel and Wilfried Swenden 1 Breaching the Social Contract: Crises of Democratic Representation and Patterns of Extreme Right Party Support.

Contract Analysis 2: Mundo Manufacturers, Rep and Extra's Boss

Scope

Mundo manufactures to sell their property. Their representative, Rep identifies to the prospective buyer, Boss. Rep uses their meeting to describe the benefits of purchasing press property. It's sold at $2.9 including warranty and delivery terms. He goes on to draw a rough plan to accommodate the new changes that will be taken should Boss purchase the property. Boss is left with the copies. Left with the copies, he hurriedly went through the papers. He quickly decides to purchase the property. He quickly accepted the offer through the telephone. He goes on to order for the proposed changes. These were to accommodate the new pressroom changes and electrical. Following the necessary renovations, a wall erected in the building is quickly demolished by the workers. A day later, the president announces a ban on all electrical and computerised importation. This ban implicates in a way to the contract. It eliminates America, the main importer of the commodity. America importers were the single largest competitor of Muundo. The same afternoon, Boss is supplied with an email withdrawing all the outstanding offers stating categorically that the press cannot be delivered in less than $2.9 million. This was an additional $0.4 million of the agreed terms.

Quality

None of the agreed terms is met. Muundo unashamedly disobeys the contract. This is because of a recent government policy which miraculously returns them into the business by illegalizing the activities of the foreign company. When contracts are breached, there exist few legal alternatives available for the parties involved. They may decide to seek justice in the courts of law, seek mediators help among other alternatives. What Boss has is therefore likely to take Mundo to courts, the most preferred dispute resolution method. The court will, therefore, view and review the justification of the breach occurred after which a decision will be made.

Mundo will, therefore, be liable to pay for the damages, specific performance and or cancellation of destitution. Damages are monetary and non-monetary claims associated with the loss that comes as a result of the failed contract. Owing to the uniqueness of the breached contract, the court is expected to give specific order performances to help administer further punishment to Mundo for having willfully and knowingly breached the contract. This would serve as a perfect warning for future cases.

Was Mundo obligated to sell the press at an extra cost?

Mundo was not obligated to sell the press at an extra cost. This amounts to contract breach being that the agreement was already in place. As much as Mundo got back the business, it was not right for it to breach the terms of the contract they had signed. The contract tends to have to conflict situations. Many would support its breach and termination; others will object to this move, in the event that one is supporting, these would be the reasons. Owing to the obvious haste nature with which the contract was made, one can assume a possibility of a great misinterpretation or fraud. When it can be properly defended that some this misinterpretation or fraud occurred, the contract can easily be terminated by the court of law due to lack of due decency in the process. When this is realized to have happened, then obviously the process is tainted and fraudulent. The same may also happen due to errors or uncertainties in the future, the same case with when a friend sells you contract to attend a match then the match gets cancelled. He can still get back his due through the court since he never received the intended purpose. All that Mundo needs to do is to convince the court that their full and accurate consent was taken care of.

Mundo was not justified to end the contract because there was no prior agreement indicated between them. His breach was therefore totally unlawful, lacking adequate legal backup. Should the prior agreements be availed, the contract could legally be ended in the court of law. It could be to the advantage of the parties if they had the requirements from the onset during the signing of the contract. This prevents legal quagmire that the people are sometimes going through.

Again, the contract could have been very difficult to breach. Considering the nature of the offer that he was given. He had no alternative but to forget everything about the new contract that would otherwise continue to bother the business. In such a case, it is said that the performance is impossible. When the performance of a contract is impossible, th...