Q.1
Breaking of Contract
The contractual law permits the parties to back off from the deals by paying fees and penalties in this regard. However, the agreement between Tom and Jerry may not contain a breakage clause but this does not mean that Jerry cannot break off the contract, and Tom has to demand reasonable amount of money in order to allow the other party to move away from his contractual liability.
Discretionary Powers of the Injured Party
The mildly injured party, Tom cannot overly exploit the weak position of Jerry, and therefore, both of them had to establish the method that they will use to end their collaboration in a peaceful manner. The legal system does not interfere, and the philosophy of lazze faire argues that the government must not hinder the exercise of business until there is an absolute need to do so. The contract discussed above is a valid one because the promise and counteroffer was made and accepted by both of the parties but the persons have to adhere to civilized method of breaking a contract.
Q.2
Promising a Reward for Good Performance and Psychological Value
A and B entered an oral contract, and that is a legally binding agreement. The person A promised B to give him $200,000 if the proceeding party can heal the ill so the promise was made moving from party A to B while, B healed the diseased son of the lady, and therefore, fulfilled his promise. Thusly, providing the old woman with the satisfaction of seeing her son healthy, and two promises were made whereas, one of them is currently fulfilled that belonged to the doctor’s side in this regard. Now, the lady has to pay the amount in order to keep her legal word.
The legal literature only deals with the presence of promises, and the subject medical service had legal validity. There is no reason to consider the agreement void but the doctor can forego his reward in order to liberate the old lady. However, if party B does not realize his rights in this regard then, the lady has to pay.
Q.3
Active Concealment
The contract between the alleged physician and his patient was void under the conjuncture that considers active concealment as a form of fraud. The patient did not have knowledge about the failed academic status of the doctor. However, the conducted procedure was an effective one but the involved expert cannot demand his dues in the court of law because he does not possess the license to practice medicine.
Discretionary Powers of the Injured Party
The provision of payment can occur as a result of the patient’s practical willingness to compensate the professional out of goodness of his heart. The contract does not have a legal value due to commitment of fraud by the doctor. The patient can sue the practitioner for malpractice as he endangered the life of a person without having proper authority in this regard. The whole case resides on the discretionary powers of the party that went through a risky process.
Q.4
Legal Value of Employment Contract
The clause of the employment contract is a legally valid one because the laid off employee signed the document, and therefore, he has to adhere to his resultant contractual responsibility that emanate from noncompeting section of the agreement that he created with his former employer. The fired worker however can work at any position other than that of a pharmacist, and therefore, the employment potential for the employee does not appear to be that grim.
Availability of other Jobs and Humanistic Grounds
The law does not prevent oneself from seek jobs, and because of this reason, the laid off employee can search for jobs those he can perform within the industry without violating the agreement. At the same time, if the worker fails to find jobs other than those of the forbidden nature, and he had to engage professionally with the organization that is present within four miles of the former employer then, the employable human resource can insert a petition in the local court in order to have waiver from the subjected clause of the agreement on humanistic grounds.
Q.5
Conflict of Interest and Minor’s Inability to Enter a Contract
The guardian does not enter into the contract with his minor child because the former party will have to watch the interest of the kid, and when the agreement establishes between both of the abovementioned social roles then, there creates a conflict of interest. The minor cannot create a contract, and the guardian has to wait for the owner of the property to reach age of majority or he can transfer the guardianship to another person, and then, enter the contract of property’s sale through the new caretaker. The contract would be void if created between a guardian and his or her dependent child. The reaching of majority of the child should give him the right to manage his property, and which, is why any person can do business with him. As for now, the guardian cannot enter into a contract with the kid under his care because of two reasons. Firstly, the conflict of interest would arise as the guardian may overweigh his interests over those of the dependent child. Secondly, a minor cannot create a contract.
References
Turner, C. & Trone, J., 2014. Australian Commercial Law. Sydney: Lawbook Company.
