Words: 437
Negligence misers – For this, the common law negligent misers is followed- I. E. That is duty of care, “special relationship” , breach of standard of care, causation, and remoteness. LLC) Duress is pressure exerted by one person to coerce (influence someone to do smith) another to contract on particular terms. The main types are duress of the person “actual or threatened violence or unlawful imprisonment”, duress of goods “wrongful detaining, damaging or destruction of goods or threatening the same”, and economic duress “using economic power to exert erasure”.
Remedies – The contract is avoidable by the party coerced and damages may be available under the tort of intimidation. It is not provided for under the Contracts Act 1950. – Coercion : Section 15 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Undue Influence : Section 16 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Mistake : Section 21 of the Contracts Act 1950 1 d) Rescission – party are restored to the position they occupied before the contract was entered into.
The right to recent is lost where: – The represented affirms the contract – It is impossible to return the parties to their pre-contract position – An innocent arty has acquired an interest in the subject matter of the contract before it has been reclined – In cases of innocent misers, if the contract have been executed – (The Rule in Sedan’s case)- but this rule has been abrogated(deleted) by statute in the context of “consumer” sales of goods. 4) This question is used to tie in the following issues: – Was the statement a term of the contract? PER (Parole Evidence Rule) – It is a written contract with no reference to the promise about the creak. – Exceptions to the PER – Particularly whether the contract was partly oral “the promise” and partly written. Collateral Contract – Was the promise about the creak a separate collateral contract? – Misrepresentation – What type? Fraudulent, innocent or negligent misers? What evidence is available to allow such a categorization? Note – Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Contracts Act 1950.
It is to put the innocent party in the position they would have been had the contract not been breached. Note – Section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950. C) The victim of the victim of the breach must not allow the loss to accumulate unnecessarily. The party in breach (defendant) can plead that the innocent party failed to mitigate. Note – Section 74 and the case of Kaftans Timber Extraction Co. V Chon FAA Shining. Ad) Specific Performance – Dugan v Eel – The high court of Australia held that damages were not sufficient.