Introduction to Business Law: Jarrad’s Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Issue
Rule of Law
Application
Conclusion
References

Issue

Duncan is a shop owner. He employed Jarrad, his son, to work in the shop at a wage. Among the duties of Jarrad is the responsibility to undertake and maintain the cleanliness at the shop in which he is employed. Jarrad performs his duties as an employee though Duncan who is his father and employer feels that the shop is not always clean enough.

In a move to improve the cleanliness of the shop, Duncan makes a proposal to increase Jarrad’s weekly payments by £ 30 subject to Jarrad’s commitment to ensure that the cleanliness of the shop is improved. This move was a motivational measure by Duncan towards his employee’s efficiency. Jarred agreed to the offer and undertook the measure to comply with Duncan’s condition of improving the state of hygiene of the shop. After one month, Duncan declines to make the extra payment to Jarrad claiming that cleaning the shop was his duty under the original contract.

Rule of Law

A contract is an arrangement between two or more parties to undertake a particular task or to refrain from a form of commission at that particular period of time or in future periods (Miller and Jentz, 2009, p. 161). For a contract to be valid there must have been an offer by one of the parties and a corresponding acceptance by the other party to whom the offer is made. The parties engaging in the contract must also have the capacity to make such contracts as required by law.

The contract must also be legal and subject to consideration (Miller and Jentz, 2009, p. 161). An offer becomes valid when it is communicated and therefore binds the parties unless it is rejected by the other party (Cavendish, 2006, p. 6). Failure by one party to perform obligations in the arrangement, therefore, amounts to contract of breach. Increment in payment was an agreement to the new arrangement and failure to perform it amounts to breach of contract by the offeror (Marsh and Soulsby, 2002, P. 153).

The formalization of a contract is normally characterized by the acceptance of a legal offer by the party to whom the offer is made. Once accepted, both parties to the contract are legally tied to meeting their obligations as per the contract (Salzedy and Brunner, 2004, 1).

Application

When terms are made in a contract, they remain binding to the parties of the contract (Smith and Thomas, 2007, P. 2129). An employer who makes express or implied terms to an employee is liable to meeting such terms or risk facing consequences of breach of terms of the contract. Agreements to make payments under contracts are enforceable in courts. A case example of such a payment agreement was enforced in the case of “Way v Latila”. In this case, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant that the defendant would make considerable advances to the plaintiff (Smith and Thomas, 2007, P. 2129).

The agreement was not clear as to the mode of consideration to be accorded and even the extent of the consideration. The defendant consequently refused to make payment to the plaintiff leading to the appeal. The House of Lords held that under the arrangement, the plaintiff was entitled to financial consideration and the House of Lords decided on the amount to be given to the plaintiff (Smith and Thomas, 2007, P. 2129).

The conditions laid by the employer and which an employee relies upon plays an important factor in the determination of what the employee is entitled to if at all the employee is entitled to a remuneration. The case of “Way v Latila” was determined by the House of Lords in the year 1937 (Burrows, McKendrick and Edelman, 2006, p. 332).

Conclusion

Jarrad is an employee in the shop as it is recorded that he works there and was entitled to a payment prior to the increment that was promised by his employer and father, Duncan. Terms in contracts must not necessarily be written and therefore the promise for extra £ 30 per week to Jarrad remains to be binding.

The promise is further significant as it is the condition under which Jarrad improved his performance. Jarred fulfilled his obligation but Duncan failed. This constitutes breach on Duncan’s side since Jarrad fulfilled his part of the agreement. Using the decision made by the House of Lords in the case of Way v Latila, it can be seen that Jarrad is entitled to the payment because there was an express agreement that he would be paid the extra amount of money. Jarrad is therefore advised to file a legal complaint against Duncan because he stands a high chance of winning.

References

Burrows, A., McKendrick, E and Edelman, J. (2006) Cases and materials on the law of restitution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cavendish. (2006) Contract law. New York, NY: Routledge.

Helewitz, J. (2010) Basic Contract Law for Paralegals. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.

Lewis, D and Sargeant, M. (2004) Essentials of Employment Law. London, UK: CIPD Publishing.

Marsh, S and Soulsby, J. (2002) Business law. London, UK: Nelson Thornes.

Marson, J. (2009) Business Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miller, R and Jentz, G. (2009) Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Mulcahy, L. (2008) Contract law in perspective. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Salzedy, J and Brunner, P. (2004) Briefcase on Contract Law. London, UK: Routledge.

Smith, I and Thomas, G. (2007) Smith & Wood’s employment law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Winfield, P and Porter, B. (2004) Core management for HR students and practitioners. London, UK: Elsevier.

Wishart, M. (2007) Contract Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!