Contracts are agreements that two or more parties get into with a motive of honoring the terms stipulate. Contracts can either be written, oral or perceived. Contract law ensures that parties involved in any contract conduct themselves in the acceptable as any misrepresentation would arise to making the contract voidable and illegal. Breach of the contract could also result to fines by the courts of law.
Skyline contractors Inc. v. Spokane Housing Authority
Statement of facts:
The skyline contractors were the appellant in this case while Spokane Housing Authority was the respondent. Skyline contacted had been contracted by the Spoken Housing Authority. However, Skyline declined to produce the credentials of the subcontractor leaving the Spoken Housing Authority with no choice but to withdraw its receiving of the proposal (Directory 96) . The Housing Authority had opted to enter into the contact in written from. As a remedy, Skyline wanted the Housing Authority to pay monetary damages due to entering into another contract with another party. Nevertheless, it had to be conducted through a court of law to legalize it.
Procedure:
The trial court found the respondent not guilty of breach of the contract. By the respondent writing a contact, it did not result to creation of a valid contract. Therefore, the appellant were not to be granted any remedy by the court. The court depended on their view that the Housing Authority did not create any contract. They argued that the respondent had the option to wait for more information before formalizing it.
Issues:
If the respondent had no information on what a contract entails and what must be fulfilled, could it result to breach of contract and later remedies? Before entering and formalizing the contract, both parties must disclose all the information related to their terms. If the parties do not the contractual knowledge, they can invite a profession who can aid in explaining what results to breach of contract and what actions one can perform that can result to agreement of the contract. If a party enters into a bid with another one in written form does it not result to creation of a contract (The Construction Specifier 256)? Are all contacts enforceable if they are in written form? Do public work contracts result to automatic contractual agreements?
Holding:
No. the remedies occur when both parties are aware of all the contractual terms. No. not all written bids result to creation of the contracts. The contacts should be clear to avoid ambiguity. All contracts in written form are not enforceable. The written contacts must meet all the terms required in any contract to make it legal. Public work contracts do not necessarily result into contacts.
Reasoning:
The court relied on am previous case that involved; Hadaller v. Port of Chehalis. The court passed the judgment based on their view that the public works contracts did not amount to a legal contract since; it was oral. They argued that the respondent would have been waiting for more information from the appellant. A contract created by the government’s body does not necessarily become enforceable at law. There must be mutual understanding of the parties involved without any coercion to enter into the contract. It should be out of own free will. No assumption should be made regarding the agreement. The court, however, the court was in agreement that the Housing Authority had entered into an enforceable contact with the Skyline contactors. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that the contract failed due to the failure of the other party to honor the terms resulting to the breach of the contract. When Skyline contractors failed to produce their sub contactor, it resulted to the Housing Authority assumed that their actions were not to honor the contract.
Decision/ remedy:
The Housing Authority was not liable for the damages claimed by the Skyline constructors since; there was a third party involved. The Skyline’s remedy was to be enjoined with the other contractors into the bid. However, it was not possible since the court rejected it.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute ET Vir
Statement of facts:
The petitioner Carnival Cruise had issues some travel tickets to the respondent Shute. When in transit, the respondent was hurt while in the ship. The respondent argued that the accident was as a result of negligent by the petitioner and the employees of the travelling company. However, the petitioners contested the move by the respondents of moving courts as they cited that the rickets had indicated that should there arise any disputes, they should be handled by a court in the state of Florida.
Procedure:
The District Court sided with the petitioner since; they upheld that they did not have the jurisdiction to pass the judgment to the petitioner since it was to be conducted in the state of Florida there was harm caused due to their negligence. However, the court of appeal did not uphold the District court’s decision thereby; nullifying it. They argued that had the respondent not boarded the ship, he would not have had the accident that hurt him. They argued that the respondent had enough contacts to let the District court exercise personal jurisdiction against the petitioner.
Issues:
Did any misrepresentation of the contract result to its nullification? The court of appeal was challenged on compelling the District court to hear the claim of the respondents. Basing the claims on Bremen v. Zapata off-shore co, they argued that the some forum selection clauses were valid. On the other hand, the court of appeal argued that the claim could not be upheld as it had not been spontaneously haggled for (United States Supreme Court Bulletin 29). Did some cases of the same nature deserve to be upheld and the others rejected? There seemed to be a lot of contradictions as some people might perceive it to be favoring other parties. They would uphold the judgment of the other and on the other hand, reject the other.
Holding:
Yes. Any misrepresentation, resulting to breach of a contract hence; it would become illegal. No. all terms should be applied in the contracts of the same nature irrespective of the parties involved. However, judgment could be different if there some special elements in the claim.
Reasoning:
The court of appeal could not enforce the claim as there was no intention of condition of utmost bad faith from the petitioner. They conducted the contract in utmost good faith as they given the respondent an option to decline the offer. Negligent misrepresentation was not found in the claim making it viable. Therefore, the court of appeal was wrong in compelling the District Court to pass the judgment and they also refused to impose the aid -variety clause.
Decision/remedy:
It was unlawful for the company to rely on that they cannot be judged by a court that was not from Florida. The respondent had to be compensated for the injury. The petitioner weakened the claims of the respondent by stating that the claim could only be heard in a court from Florida. In such a case, the claims of the respondent would be heard irrespective of where the judgment would be passed and remedied provided.
Work cited:
Directory - American Society of Civil Engineers. New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1900. Print.
The Construction Specifier. Alexandria, Va., etc: Construction Specifications Institute, 1949.
Print.
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. V. Shute Et Vir: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. United States: publisher not identified, 1991. Print.
United States Supreme Court Bulletin. Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, Inc, 1936. Print.
