Critical Analysis: Softwood and Wayland

Analysis of Contract Elements

The critical analysis of the case study shows that there is the existence of a contact engagement between Softwood and Wayland. The agreement between the two parties has particular elements needed in a legal contract (Andrews, 2015). Firstly, there is an offer as Wayward is offering broadswords for use in fight sequences to Softwood. There is also an agreement between the two parties because of the consideration element. The agreement has a provision of something valuable regarding money in the exchange of the product offered (McKendrick, 2014). Softwood received ten swords at the cost of PS 35, 000 as a consideration. Lastly, the engagement between Softwood and Wayland is a contract because of the acceptance element. Softwood accepted the offer of 10 broadswords at the cost of PS 35,000.

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

Save 25%

However, critical analysis shows that the engagement between Softwood and Wayland lacks some aspects of a contract, for instance, intent is absent. The agreement does not show evidence of intent as there is no presence of legally binding conformity to a ruling law (Poole, 2016). Both parties do not mention adherence to any ruling law. On the other hand, there is intent in the contract between Monster Props Inc and Softwood because of the provision of the intent. Monster's terms indicated that that the contract would operate under the governance of the Federal Law of USA (Shojaei, 2017). Moreover, Monster had high levels of complying with the elements of contract than Wayland in the engagement with Softwood. As a result, there are high chances for Softwood to have a long-term business relationship with Monster Props than Wayland. The monster had all the elements of a contract that include an offer, acceptance, intent, and consideration, unlike Softwood that lacked the intent aspect of the agreement.

Analysis of Vitiating Factors

Misrepresentation has also affected the validity of contracts that Softwood had with Wayland and Monster. First, Wayland misrepresented the information of the contract by inducing Softwood to accept the terms of the agreement (Wyner & Casini, 2017). Wayland induced Softwood that she was a qualified producer of swords. Later on, Softwood realized that the swords offered by Wayland were of low quality. Moreover, Wayland misrepresented the terms the contract by informing Chloe that liability will extend the total costs of the swords (Shojaei, 2017). Analysis shows that Wayland used misrepresentation of the contract terms to induce Softwood to agree.

The other vitiating factor in the deal between Softwood and Wayland is the presence of a mistake. There is a mistake by Wayland in offering low quality swords to her client. The swords provided by Wayland had weaker brades. Upon the realization of the mistake, Chloe sought for another contact with a new supplier (Smits, 2017). An example of a mistake as a vitiating factor in contract engagement is Copper v Phibbs case. In this case, B leased a fishery to A without a correct indication of ownership terms. The court ruled in favor of A because it was a mistake of B to hide the ownership of the fishery.

Analysis of Contract Terms

The agreement between parties in the case study complies with particular contract terms. The first contract term that the parties complied with was the outlining of duties (Poole, 2016). Wayland identified her duty of offering high-quality swords to Softwood. On the other hand, Softwood took the responsibility of paying PS35,000 for the products supplied. Also, the contract with Monster Props had specifications of the duty as a contract term. Monster Props had the duty of delivering the product upon the order of the client. The contract between Softwood and Wayland became invalid because the duties of the third had less consideration in the agreement (McKendrick, 2014). After Larry's injury, Softwood incurred extra costs because there was no mention of medical insurance companies as third parties in the contract.

Also, date as contract terms has less consideration in the Softwood deal with suppliers of the swords for use during fight sequences in a film. On the other hand, Monster Props specified important dates for the delivery of the ordered products by Softwood. For instance, Monster indicated the delivery dates as part of the contract terms. There are high chances for the successful business relationship between Softwood and Monster because of the specifications of contract terms (Shojaei, 2017).

The engagement with both between Softwood and Monster had a little specification on the payment terms. There is a specification of the payment methods as stipulated by the Federal Law. It is against the Sale of Goods Act to have a contract without the indication of the payment mode (Smits, 2017). For instance, the Federal of USA states that terms of a contract ought to specify the mode of payment. Moreover, the contract terms in the case study do not offer the room for deduction in case of delayed delivery of products (Wyner & Casini, 2017). As a result, the supplier may fail to adhere to the contract terms due to the absence of penalties.

Analysis of Contract Discharge

There was no discharge of the contract between Softwood and Wayland because of failure in meeting the set obligations. The swords supplied by Wayland were of low quality contrary to the contract specification. Wayland was guilty of breaching the contract terms while Softwood performed the obligation of paying for the products offered. The performance discharge was incomplete as one party failed to offer products in the manner prescribed in the agreement (Wyner & Casini, 2017). As a result, Softwood has a valid discharge of the contract and has a right of action against Wayland. Softwood has a right to claim for extra costs incurred through disrupted filming and Larry's medication. Cutter v Powell...1975 is an example of a case involved in a considerable performance of a contract.

Softwood sought for novation after the failure of Wayland to discharge her contract. Chloe substitutes Monster Props with Wayland for another business engagement in the supply of swords (Smits, 2017). Softwood created a new contract with Monster Props in exchange for Wayland. Using Wayland's swords for filming was not safe for actors because of their low-quality nature. Critical analysis reveals that Chloe sought for another supplier of swords out of the failure of Wayland to discharge the contract by performance.

In the efforts of discharging the contract, Wayland tried to alter the contract terms to convince Softwood of her competence to deliver the products as prescribed earlier. Though alteration was valid, the Chloe had lost trust in the swords offered by Monster Props (Poole, 2016). Softwood has as well realized that Wayland had no qualifications in armory industry, a situation that increased the chances for contract novation than accepting the alteration of terms.

Analysis of Remedies for Breach

Compensatory damages and restitution are the ones most applicable to the case study. Under compensatory damages, the court may order the party that breached the contract to pay for the other person the amount needed to get the agreed services and goods (Andrews, 2015). As per the case study, Wayland was to pay Softwood PS45,000 as the total cost for swords supplied by Monster Props. The court order for compensatory damages requires Wayland to make payments to Softwood for failure to provide swords of high quality as promised in the contract. Softwood had extra costs out of Wayland's breach of the contract terms. An example of a case that had compensatory damages is that of Hadley v Baxendale.

On the other hand, the court may order restitution as punishment to a party that breaches the contract. By restitution, the court orders a party that breached the contract to pay back the other person the amount paid for the goods or services supplied (Smits, 2017). As per the case study, supposing the court orders under restitution, Wayland was to pay back PS35,000 paid by Softwood.

Apart from remedies of law, the court may also order by remedies of equity when ruling cases concerning contract breach. The court may apply specific performance to force the breaching party to offer the service or goods as promised in the contract terms. As per the case study, court order under specific performance requirement will force Wayland to provide swords of high quality to Softwood. Additionally, the court may rule under cancellation by declaring that parties have no abiding demands by contract (Wyner & Casini, 2017). For instance, the court may cancel the contract and declare that parties have no abiding demands by it.

References

Andrews, N. (2015). Contract law. Cambridge University Press.McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).Poole, J. (2016). Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.Shojaei, A. (2017). Validity of Open Contract in International Trade Law. J. Pol. & L., 10, 241.

Smits, J. M. (Ed.). (2017). Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.Wyner, A., & Casini, G. (2017). A Deep Learning Approach to Contract Element Extraction. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, 155.